Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Benefit Fraud

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further action he plans to take to reduce benefit fraud. [19699]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): As I announced to the House on 5 March, I am creating a new benefit fraud investigation service, which will bring together almost 5,000 specialised staff from the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. I announced yesterday the first three areas to be selected for a programme of local month-long anti-fraud drives.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that benefit fraud takes money not only from the Exchequer but from vulnerable people? Will he therefore address the important subject of political benefit fraud, and avoid following the Opposition's policy of thinking the unthinkable and spending the unaffordable, which would perpetrate a massive fraud on the people of this country? Does he think that that is a fair description of the Opposition's social security review?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition have been trying to perpetrate a fraud on the British people over social security. They have systematically voted against and opposed every social security reform that we have introduced, yet at the same time they try to pretend that they are fiscally responsible.

Mr. Bradley: Clearly, we welcome those belated measures to try to combat fraud—after the Government have been in office for 17 years. At Question Time on 23 January, I asked the Secretary of State exactly what his fraud targets were for each of the next three years. He said that he could not respond immediately from the Dispatch Box, so I wrote to him. He acknowledged my letter on 8 February, but I have had no reply to my question. Will he tell us today exactly what his yearly fraud targets are for each of the next three years?

Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the reply that I gave him in debate, but I can tell him now that the overall fraud target for 1996–97 is £1.8 billion, and that for 1998–99 it is £2.5 billion. For the current year the target is £1.38 billion.

Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Eastbourne, since the push on fraudulent claims began, it has been found that fraudulent housing benefit claims are running at more than £1 million a year? Is he aware that my constituents who pay their taxes and do not claim benefits fraudulently are sick and tired of underwriting such activity?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The people who most support the attack on fraud and abuse are those on modest earnings who honestly pay their way in society without claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, and who greatly resent seeing others who achieve a standard of living not far below their own by abusing the benefit system. I am delighted that, in my hon. Friend's constituency, as elsewhere, we are being successful in cracking down on that abuse.

Income Support Assessments

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the error rate for income support assessments in (a) 1988 and (b) 1995. [19700]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): It was 13.5 per cent. in 1988 and 16.1 per cent. in 1995.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister confirm that the value of the errors has increased, as they involved 2 per cent. of overall expenditure in 1988, but now involve no less than 5 per cent. of all expenditure on income support? Will he also confirm that, since income support was introduced, the Comptroller and Auditor General has qualified the accounts every year since 1988 because the Department cannot deliver income support properly? How, then, does the Secretary of State justify the recent plans to cut the cost of administering Department of Social Security benefits by 25 per cent.?

Mr. Evans: Income support is a complex and well-targeted benefit, involving repeated change-of-circumstances considerations. Since 1988, the number of claimants, of cases and of changes in circumstances, as well as the total sums involved, have increased substantially. The change programme is designed to be a medium to longer-term remedy. In the shorter term, on most analyses the greater part of the errors appear to arise from income support mortgage interest payments, and the move towards a standard rate introduced last autumn should have a material effect on that aspect. The intention of the change programme is to provide a better service, with modern information technology and an altogether different approach to the organisation.

Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the objectives of his change programme include not only improved efficiency, but making fewer errors? Will he also confirm that the changes were opposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on the ground that they would not work, although he had received a letter from the shadow Chief Secretary describing them as perfectly feasible?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is certainly right about both points. We are mystified by that contradiction.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister tell the House the date by which he expects income support to get unqualified support from the Comptroller and Auditor General? Surely that is what taxpayers require from the Government.

Mr. Evans: We have introduced measures on a scale previously unknown. I am not in a position to give a date as requested.

Occupational Pensions

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist people to retain more of their occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement. [19701]

Mr. Roger Evans: By their very nature, income-related benefit schemes normally take account of most forms of income, including that from an occupational pension; hence, it is only right that entitlement to those benefits should reduce as income increases. However, from April 1996, in line with Department of Health changes to the charging rules for people in residential care, people whose care costs continue to be met by income support may have 50 per cent. of their occupational pension disregarded where they remit at least this amount to their spouses who remain in the community.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the situation in my constituency of retired mineworkers who are entitled to an 80p a week increase in occupational pension? The Department of Social Security claws back 57p of that in housing benefit. A further 15p is taken out of council tax refund. The increase in the cost of fuel oil last year meant a further increase of l0p a week in transport costs. All the occupational pension increase for retired miners is being clawed back by the DSS and the Government's taxation policy. Furthermore, Yorkshire Water has increased water rates by more than twice the rate of inflation, which takes a large slice out of the increase in national pensions. When will the Government do something to allow pensioners to retain something of their occupational pensions?

Mr. Evans: The constituent about whom the hon. Gentleman wrote to me was receiving a retirement pension and a modest occupational pension from the mining industry. He was, however, eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit. Under the general rules, because those benefits are payable in circumstances other than those relating to income support, above the applicable amount 65 per cent. is taken off, and 15 per cent. is taken off in respect of council tax. If a full disregard for occupational pensions across the income-related benefits were introduced, the cost to the taxpayer in 1996–97 would be more than £2 billion. That is a public expenditure programme that Labour's spokesman had better contemplate with greater caution than the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that the Government will continue to press for increases in the holding of private pensions? Does he agree that the proposed nationalisation of private pension funds by the Labour party is a nightmare for those who are about to retire and those who are retired?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The great success of British pension provision has been UK-funded pension schemes in the private sector by way of occupational pensions, personal pensions and retirement annuity contracts. The total of those funds, in aggregate, is £600 billion. As the funds are properly privately invested, the return on capital in real terms since 1980 has been 10 per cent. per annum. It is a threat to ordinary pensioners in occupational pension schemes if other people such as trade unions, the Government or the state try to interfere with that private enterprise approach.

Mr. Denham: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) right? Is it not true that many of today's pensioners retired believing that their state and occupational pension would keep them out of poverty, but that the Tories have taken their pension away and pushed them into poverty? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Social Security, who wrote in The Times on Saturday that means testing punishes people who save? Is not that a clear example of the Tories saying one thing and doing another?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every score—he is not even halfway right, as the Evening Standard reported today. The issue at stake is whether retirement pensions should be uprated in line with prices, which is the undertaking that the Government have fulfilled. Everyone knows that the success of our pensions policy is due to private funds run by private organisations in occupational schemes and the like, which have provided, and continue to provide, a rising standard of living for pensioners. That is why recently retired pensioners enjoy higher occupational pension levels than those who retired a couple of decades ago.

Benefit Reforms

Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on how his benefit reforms will help people off benefit and into work. [19702]

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reforms of the benefit system he is planning to help unemployed people back to work. [19704]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): The Government's benefit-to-work programme has made a substantial contribution to the reduction in unemployment in the United Kingdom. In addition to family credit, which has helped 300,000 families leave income support in the past three years, about 750,000 people will be helped this year by a range of new measures. From April, the four-week extension of housing benefit will remove worries about rent for new job starters. The national insurance contribution holiday will help employers who take on the


long-term unemployed. Help with child care costs in family credit and disability working allowance will increase from £40 to £60 a week. Family credit claims will be speeded up to get the extra help to people more quickly.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which is good news for everyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called welfare-to-work schemes, which often involve minimum wage levels, result in people being put out of work rather than in more jobs? Does my hon. Friend agree that such proposals are best described as work-to-welfare schemes and are the sort of schemes that the Labour party pushes?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend rightly points out the main flaw in the welfare-to-work package, which includes the minimum wage. The minimum wage does not help the poorest—studies show that the majority of low-paid workers are the second, or even third, income earners in high-earning households. In addition, the minimum wage tends to squeeze out jobs, particularly for the lowest-paid and those with the fewest skills. Our programme of finding ways to improve job opportunities for people and to help them to gain work through benefit offers the unemployed a far better option than a minimum wage.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to encourage flexibility in the setting of benefits so that those who may have the opportunity of part-time employment, which may be seasonal, are better off taking a part-time job than sitting at home doing nothing? Will my hon. Friend ensure that staff in benefit offices are properly acquainted with all the rules?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the flexibility of the benefit system. I hope that my answer encouraged him, because that is precisely what we have been trying to do. Increasing earning disregards for those who remain unemployed is not necessarily the best approach as it may be a disincentive to their taking up full-time work, which we want to encourage. Those who are working part time on benefit will, from October, be able to build up a back-to-work bonus—a substantial lump sum that will help them into work.

Mr. Barry Jones: There are 2,500 jobless people in my constituency. How many of them will be helped into work by these measures?

Mr. Burt: We expect that some 750,000 people will benefit from the £600 million-worth of changes that the Budget made to work incentive measures last year. The hon. Gentleman should be able to do the division and work out how many people in his constituency are likely to benefit from these measures.

Mr. Pike: When the Minister is next in his constituency, will he come a few miles north into Burnley and note the wage levels that are being offered to many people? Does he understand that they cannot afford to go to work—even with the type of help that he has spoken about this afternoon—because they are out of pocket if they do? What the Tories have done to wage levels and working conditions since they were elected is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Burt: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the links between the benefits system and the wage system. I do not know whether his idea of a minimum wage—which would put even more of his constituents out of work—would help in any respect. If the hon. Gentleman studies the types of measure that the Government have introduced and the earnings top—up pilot that we are introducing this year—which will provide an opportunity for people on low incomes to see whether they can have their wages increased to help them into work—he will see that what we are providing will assist many of his constituents. I would guess, without looking at the figures too closely, that fewer people are now unemployed in his constituency than was the case at the last election—that shows the benefit of the measures that we have been passing.

Mrs. Peacock: I welcome the Government's decision to give an extra £10 a week to people who are working 30 hours a week or more and are in receipt of family credit. Does my hon. Friend know how many families it will help?

Mr. Burt: The extra £10 a week premium for those currently working 30 hours or more and in receipt of family credit will help a substantial number of people. It helps a substantial number of families at the moment. The exact number of people who will benefit from this extra measure has slipped my mind, and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Family Poverty and Low Pay

Mr. Mackinlay:: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken to ascertain the extent of family poverty and low pay; and if he will make a statement. [19703]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The key to helping people out of low income is to create opportunities and incentives to work. We have looked closely at the difficulties that families face in moving into work and we have introduced a wide range of practical measures to help overcome those barriers.

Mr. Mackinlay: Why has no Minister from the Department of Social Security attended the hearings that are being held at Church house, Westminster? The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, many politicians and prelates are attending the hearings of the Church action on poverty to listen to people who are low-paid and homeless. Is it not time that Ministers went with some humility and listened to people who are in utmost deprivation, and explained to them how poverty has increased since 1979 from 4 million to 15 million people? Why are 4 million children in this country in poverty? How is it that the United Kingdom has one quarter of the people who are poor in the European Union?

Mr. Mitchell: Ministers will take a close interest in the results of today's seminar at Church house. The Prime Minister sent a personal message to the seminar, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard. Why does he not tell the House that unemployment in his constituency has fallen


by 23 per cent. in the past 24 months? Why does he not tell the House that it has fallen by 750,000 since 1992? Why does he not tell the House that unemployment in the United Kingdom is well below the European average and below the level in Germany? Why does he not take account of the fact that the way to improve living standards, as the Prime Minister said in his message this morning, is to get people back into work? The Government have been improving and expanding into-work support, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said, and we are now helping 630,000 families on family credit.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the more public money that is used to give support to families in need, the more families will register as being in need of help and therefore be named as being in poverty? "In poverty" is hardly a description of people who have received substantial sums. It is the way that money is spent that is important.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority of our fellow citizens are a great deal better off than they were in 1979. Average incomes are up for all family types. Average incomes are up on average by a third since 1979 and pensioners' income has increased by about 50 per cent. We can therefore be proud of the Government's record in those areas.

Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not the case, however, that, after listening to the Minister and the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), one would suppose that poverty did not exist? It does, and it is growing. If the hon. Gentlemen had been to Church house today, they would have heard the evidence at first hand. Does the Minister realise that one in three children are growing up in poverty, compared with one in 10 when the Government took office? Is that not a standing indictment of the damage that the Government have done to our country?

Mr. Mitchell: We are all looking forward to 8 May, when the hon. Gentleman will have finished his six-month review and when he can explain to the House whether, if he believes what he just said, he intends to increase payments for welfare as he suggested.
If the hon. Gentleman is serious about what he says, however, why does he back the Labour party's decision to impose a national minimum wage and to sign up to the social chapter? If he were serious about that, he would acknowledge that the national minimum wage would reduce jobs and put people out of work, while destroying future job opportunities.
We have discovered from recent surveys that the richest 30 per cent. of those affected by a national minimum wage would gain far more than the poorest 30 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about those matters, as part of his review of thinking the unthinkable he should change his party's policy on a job-destroying national minimum wage.

Pilot Studies

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to use the Isle of Wight for one of the pilot studies of new methods being considered by his Department. [19705]

Mr. Lilley: I believe that it is desirable, where possible, to try out changes to the benefit system on a pilot basis before introducing them nationally and I have obtained increased powers to do so in the social security system. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this approach. The Isle of Wight is currently being used as a control area in the earnings top-up pilot. I shall certainly consider whether it would be suitable for piloting other schemes.

Mr. Field: Because of its clear boundaries, surely the Isle of Wight is an ideal community for all pilot studies. I feel certain that all my constituents would welcome the Isle of Wight being at the forefront of modernisation of the welfare state, for which the Government have done so much.

Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Isle of Wight, because of its island status, might well be a suitable area for future studies. If I were to select places for pilot schemes on the basis of the diligence of the Member of Parliament in pursuing his constituents' interests in social security matters, I would place the Isle of Wight top of the list.

Mortgage Interest

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on his changes to the payment of mortgage interest for benefit claimants. [19706]

Mr. Roger Evans: We have received a number of representations.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that the application of the standard interest rate to those with a fixed-rate repayment mortgage means that they suffer a significant reduction in benefit because they have to top up their payments, which his Department should be doing, to cover their mortgage? I have corresponded with the Minister about a constituent, Mr. Tickle of Maenclochog. Does the Minister accept that the way the standard rate is applied to people with fixed-rate mortgages means that the promise that his Department gave that no claimant would lose out is not being honoured, and that it is time for a change?

Mr. Evans: The answer, I am happy to say, is no. I have caused further inquiries to be made about Mr. Tickle's case. I am told that he has a variable-rate mortgage, not a fixed-rate mortgage, and it appears that the system of add back is operating perfectly fairly, as we expected it to, to protect Mr. Tickle 100 per cent. I shall write again to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to see me to discuss Mr. Tickle's case, I shall be happy to do so.

Full and Part-time Employees

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount of benefit paid by his Department to (a) full and (b) part-time employees. [19707]

Mr. Roger Evans: In 1994–95, the amount of benefit paid to employees through in-work benefits—such as


family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit—was nearly £2 billion. In addition, of course, employees may benefit, where they satisfy the conditions, from a range of other benefits, such as child benefit or disability living allowance.

Mr. MacShane: If the Minister adds income support—about which he recently gave a parliamentary answer—to the figure, £3 billion is now paid out to people in work through the benefits system, which is double the 1990 figure. While all hon. Members want to protect people in poverty, is not the plain fact that employees in my constituency who are offered jobs at £1.44 or £2 an hour must turn to the benefit system, which acts as a huge subsidy for low-pay employers and distorts the local labour market? I put it to the Minister that, as a Conservative, a taxpayers' subsidy of that order cannot make economic sense.

Mr. Evans: Evidence from research by the Institute of Employment Studies shows that employers do not know whether the family in question is in receipt of family credit because, of course, family credit is ordinarily paid to the woman. The evidence also seems to suggest that that is not having a distorting effect on the labour market. That is the first point.
The second point is that in-work benefits such as family credit are better for people who are in the condition that the hon. Gentleman described, because they are acquiring and using work skills. Such benefits are also better for the taxpayer, because the cost of paying income support on a full means-tested basis would be considerably greater.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more practical and more moral to help low-paid people through family credit than it is to legislate for their unemployment through the national minimum wage and the social chapter?

Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's two points. The basic problem with the minimum wage is that, in effect, it prohibits employment below a prescribed level—the effect of which would be to create unemployment, depending on the level of that minimum wage.

Long-term Sick and Disabled People

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers in 1995–96; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79. [19708]

Mr. Burt: Estimated expenditure on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers has quadrupled in real terms, from £5 billion in 1978–79 to more than £20 billion in 1995–96. With some 6.5 million disabled people, this represents a substantial commitment, and it is almost as great as our commitment to the 345,000 people—I can now provide that figure, as my memory has recovered—who will benefit from family credit extensions.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree mat our system of disability benefits is comprehensive and coherent? Does he agree that it promotes independence and integration, and that it focuses extra help on people who are disabled early in life and therefore have the least chance to work and save?

Mr. Burt: Yes. My hon. Friend is correct. The system has for some 25 years tried to recognise the importance that disabled people attach to being independent, and benefits have increased accordingly. Our record on disability has been very good. The scheme recently announced by the NHS to allow access to powered wheelchairs and the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which is currently going through the House, demonstrate that our commitment is undiminished and increasing.

Mr. Alan Howarth: If the Minister wants to achieve value for the money spent on long-term sick and disabled people, will he accept that efficiency will have to be understood in terms of quality of service rather than merely in terms of savings to the Exchequer? Will he concede, particularly in the light of the shambles mat has been exposed in the privatisation of other parts of the Benefits Agency, that there is no reason to suppose that privatisation of the Benefits Agency medical service will secure better service or value even in the Treasury's terms, and that, if the Conservative party retains any sense of civic responsibility, it will abandon that project?

Mr. Burt: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. In virtually every case where some form of contractorisation has been introduced, it has provided benefits to the service and the taxpayer, with no diminution in quality whatsoever. I do not consider that the Benefits Agency medical service will be harmed by the process of contractorisation now being considered and we expect an enhanced service to result.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's work for and funding of disabled people is remarkable? The same is true of people in poverty. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was not the only Member at Church house this morning; hon. Members in all parts of the House are taking part in that conference on poverty and recognise the importance of the theme. Is it not true that people are properly covered by the benefits system and that nobody needs to be in poverty?

Mr. Burt: A remarkable tone of consensus was adopted on radio and television by some speakers at the conference this morning. My hon. Friend has adopted the same tone, but it has not been adopted by me Opposition. A considerable amount of effort and time is put in by the Government to try to ease the burdens of poverty. We maintain that the most important way to ease people out of poverty is to provide work and the opportunities for work. The success of our efforts in doing so has considerably reduced unemployment in the United Kingdom.
As for our commitment to those in difficulties, expenditure on disabled people has quadrupled in real terms since we have been in office, which is evident manifestation of our commitment. This Government care and can prove that they care.

Child Support Act

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care have been waiting more than a year to receive money for their children under the Child Support Act 1991. [19709]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Currently there are 194,000 parents, out of 1.5 million so far taken on by the agency, who made a maintenance application more than a year ago and have yet to have a maintenance assessment.
I can announce to the House that the Child Support Agency will now be paying interest on maintenance that it has collected which is due for onward payment to the parent with care but has not been passed on within 28 days. That will apply to all payments received since 1 April 1995.

Mr. Griffiths: I welcome the Minister's announcement. Does that not show that the Government have at last recognised that the CSA has been a shambles from the beginning? Would it not have been better if the Minister had announced today either that more staff would be employed to run the system or that the system would be simplified so that parents with care could receive their money more quickly?

Mr. Mitchell: As the ombudsman found, there is no problem with staffing—the CSA has taken on additional staff—and the system is constantly being simplified.
The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question related to a different matter. It is common knowledge across the House that the start of the CSA was "dire", as the Select Committee on Social Security put it. In its recent report, however, the Select Committee said:
The CSA is now on a surer footing and a whole range of indicators suggest that improvements are being made.
We are determined that those improvements should continue in the months ahead, just as they have been evident in the months gone by.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the ombudsman's report did not seem to take account of what is happening now in the CSA rather than historically? Can my hon. Friend tell the House the current figure for speed of payment to the parent with care? Will my hon. Friend also note that although the ombudsman criticised the average of 30 weeks taken by the CSA to clear up cases, perhaps we should judge that in the context of the average of 70 weeks that the ombudsman takes to clear up his own cases?

Mr. Mitchell: On the first point, I noted that of the 20 cases the ombudsman looked at, some 14 involved problems which began in 1993. In that sense, his report is historic. As for the length of time it takes to get money from the agency to the parent with care, I was surprised at the ombudsman's criticism. The agency has been set a target to get payments out within 10 days to 90 per cent. of parents with care; this year, it has exceeded that target and managed to reach 97 per cent. of parents. The remaining 3 per cent. includes cheques that bounced. In that respect, I do not consider that the ombudsman's criticisms of the CSA were valid.

Ms Lynne: In the light of the second critical report by the parliamentary ombudsman into the working of the Child Support Agency, in which he catalogues a series of errors such as the general mishandling of cases, mistaken identity and giving out confidential information, is it not about time that the Minister admitted defeat, scrapped the agency and brought in a fair and workable system?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady is wrong. First, on the cases which the ombudsman examined, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), some 14 of those 20 cases referred to events which took place in 1993 when the agency was in a very different condition. The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest scrapping the agency. It is here to stay. There is a wide consensus across Britain—if not among the Liberal Democrats—that the principles behind the CSA are right and proper in the interests of getting maintenance to the children who rightfully deserve it.
The House will have seen that regulations were laid last Monday for the piloting of the departure scheme. That is most important to the development of the CSA as it will enable us to deal with the small minority of cases which cannot be dealt with fairly under the formula.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, proportionately, a year is a long time in the life of a child and that interest paid at the end of a year cannot do much to compensate for any deprivation that the child may have suffered? Will he continue with his efforts in nagging, cajoling and persuading the staff of the CSA to improve their performance and thus avoid further criticism?

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The CSA has been set demanding targets for next year to improve its accuracy to 85 per cent. and to increase the maintenance that it arranges and collects. There will be no resting by the CSA in its determination to ensure that there is a proper improvement in its service.

Mr. Wicks: Is the Minister not being complacent and dismissive of the ombudsman's important work and report? Is he not concerned that one third of complaints to the ombudsman involve the Child Support Agency? Why has he not appointed an independent complaints adjudicator, as recommended by the ombudsman a year ago? Why has that appointment not been made? Will he announce that appointment today to bring some much needed fairness into the system?

Mr. Mitchell: In respect of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are looking at the ombudsman's report with great care. I was responding to a specific question on the time taken to get money through to the parent with care. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the ombudsman looked at 195 cases. The CSA deals with 1.25 million cases. We are determined—there is certainly no complacency in the agency or among Ministers—to make certain that the CSA's performance improves. The hon. Gentleman's second point about an independent examiner is interesting and helpful. We are nearing the conclusion of our discussions on it and I hope to be able to say something to the House shortly.

Single Mothers

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy in respect of single mothers. [19711]

Mr. Lilley: Our policy has three strands. First, we have improved the incentives for lone parents to work, which increases their income and relieves the burdens on the taxpayer. Secondly, we aim to ensure that more of them receive regular maintenance from the absent parent. Thirdly, we propose to ensure that the benefits system does not discriminate against married couples.

Mr. Steen: Since legal aid impinges on the social security budget, will the Secretary of State look at the case of an Australian schoolmaster earning £25,000 per year who gets legal aid to fight his wife in Britain? He has not paid a penny piece to either his wife or his children for four years, yet he still receives public money in Britain under the Legal Aid Board. That is not a good use of public funds or of our Government's care for the family.

Mr. Lilley: I will take the matter up with the Lord Chancellor, whose responsibility it is to meet the budget for legal aid. I agree that great resentment arises from that sort of case.

Mr. Chisholm: Why are the Government hell bent on reducing lone parent benefits and ignoring all the evidence about the additional costs faced by lone parents, as presented in the Department's 1985 Green Paper and in a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Trust? Why not let the facts get in the way of prejudice for a change?

Mr. Lilley: Far from being hell bent on this, we are taking a gradualist approach. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his colleague, the Chairman of the Social Security Committee, who said:
If one-parent benefit is phased out … it is a move we"—
the Labour party—
should support"?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Easington (Visit)

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to pay a visit to the Easington constituency. [19729]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Cummings: What a pity—the right hon. Gentleman will never know what he is missing. Since I gave the Prime Minister notice of my question, has he had the opportunity to ascertain why the Department of Transport has rejected a submission by Durham county council for funds to provide access roads to the Dawdon and Fox Cover enterprise zones in my constituency? Would it not be common sense—[Interruption.]—for the Department of Transport to support those sites, which have been designated by the Department of the

Environment, and for funds to be allocated to allow the building of access roads to the A19? Is this not a case—[Interruption.]—of one Government Department not knowing what the other is doing? Will the Prime Minister use his influence to get the problem resolved?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question—all of it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed the orders which will allow the Dawdon and Fox Cover road link to be constructed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, designated enterprise zones may be areas attractive to private sector inward investment and I am confident that the regeneration agencies in local partnerships will go some way to funding the link road, which I agree is the key to the regeneration of the area. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the designation of enterprise zone status will provide the impetus for the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs in the two zones.

Engagements

Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19730]

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Burden: The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that a few years ago the present Home Secretary was the Minister in charge of water privatisation. Does the Prime Minister recall what his right hon. and learned Friend said on 17 March 1989? He said that after privatisation
it will entirely disappear as a political issue. No one will be talking about it at all. It will be in the private sector, delivering the goods.
With 800 million gallons of water leaking away every day, and with the goings-on in Yorkshire, when the Prime Minister holds his crisis Cabinet meeting, where will he lay the blame for the lack of a water feel-good factor—on the privatised utilities or on the judgment of his right hon. and learned Friend?

The Prime Minister: Water companies have a statutory duty to maintain supplies and we expect all companies to take the necessary measures to do that. Yorkshire Water has invested more than £1 billion in the past five years and will invest as much again over the next five years. Around two thirds of every pound in profit is reinvested for the benefit of consumers.
On the general subject of water privatisation, more than £15 billion has been invested in modernising the industry since privatisation. That could not and would not have been possible without the industry's access to private sector finance.

Madam Speaker: Questions are getting too long. Let us have a short one.

Mr. Allason: I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. In a week in which an Algerian suspect has been arrested on charges involving terrorism in France, many people have been distressed to realise that Hamas supporters in this country have been raising money for terrorism. It is especially distressing that they have all been receiving social security benefits in this country. Will my right hon. Friend put a stop to that?

The Prime Minister: We are certainly determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is not a base for external support for terrorism anywhere in the world. I take to heart what my hon. Friend has said about Hamas. We must also look at the activities of other people who come here and actively conspire to commit terrorist acts, those who abuse the hospitality and protection available here and those who use this country as a base from which to cause trouble for other countries.

Mr. Blair: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does the Prime Minister agree that we should not prejudice the outcome of the Cullen inquiry? Will he confirm that all the issues concerning gun laws will come within the scope of the inquiry? Does he further agree that it would be sensible at least to begin to examine those issues now on an all-party basis? In particular, we should address, first, the question of handguns being kept in private homes. Secondly, we must address the concern expressed at the weekend by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—and many others that currently the police have to prove why a firearms certificate should not be issued rather than the gun owner having to prove why it should.

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that Lord Cullen's inquiry will be considering the subject of handguns. I can also confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has begun a review of existing gun controls and intends to offer every assistance to the inquiry under Lord Cullen. At my right hon. and learned Friend's invitation, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is already a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend would welcome the views of other parties in the House before he makes a decision on the entirety of the evidence.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting off the electricity supply to any home in our country should be undertaken only as a last resort? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last year when electricity was a nationalised industry no fewer than 80,000 households had their electricity cut off, but that since then the figure has dramatically reduced and last year only 1,000 households out of the 24 million in England and Wales were disconnected? Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the privatised electricity companies for adopting what can perhaps most aptly be described as a more enlightened policy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the changed circumstances following privatisation. There is no doubt that privatisation has proved to be the right structure for the industry, and the independent regulator's promotion of competition is very much in the interests of the consumer.

We have seen evidence of that in falling prices and, as my hon. Friend has vividly illustrated, in a better service for the many people who face difficulties.

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19731]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wicks: As the Prime Minister has summoned his Cabinet colleagues to a crisis meeting tomorrow to discuss the mystery—to him—of the missing feel-good factor, will he consider having a meeting with the victims of negative equity, who number 1.7 million, or with representatives of the 8 million people who have become unemployed since the last general election? Does the Prime Minister accept that those people do not feel good, but that they feel bad and they feel let down by him and his Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the nature of tomorrow morning's meeting. He really ought not to believe all—or, indeed, much—of what he reads in The Independent.
I am delighted that the number of people in negative equity is falling. I am also delighted that fewer people are unemployed in this country than in any comparable country in Europe—in particular, those comparable countries which follow the policies that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, given the chance, would inflict on this country.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19732]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his disapproval—expressed in the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference—of the power of the European Court of Justice to make new laws that are binding on nation states will be warmly welcomed? Is he further aware that he is not alone in Europe, but shares with others—such as the French Prime Minister—concern that the European Court is overstepping the mark? Will he assure the House and the country that at the IGC he will insist that the court's powers are cut back, so that it does not become the supreme court of a federated superstate of Europe?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. I heard what the French Prime Minister had to say, and I thoroughly approved of the way in which he said it.
I am greatly concerned about the fact that the European Court's interpretations have too often seemed to go beyond what Governments intended when the laws were framed. The court's functioning can be improved; I believe that it must be improved, and we will seek improvements at the intergovernmental conference. As my hon. and learned Friend said, a federal Europe with


the European Court becoming, little by little, a European supreme court is not a Europe that this Government can support.

Mr. Clapham: In view of the fears expressed in the nuclear industry that the heavy running of the advanced gas-cooled reactors may have resulted in distortions which could cause a nuclear accident, and bearing it in mind that if the nuclear industry were privatised, commercial decisions could outweigh safety decisions, will the Prime Minister now shelve the idea of privatising the nuclear industry?

The Prime Minister: We have sought advice, and we have been advised that privatisation of the nuclear industry would not in any way damage safety standards. That is clearly very important. Thus far, Nuclear Electric has an excellent safety record. I think that that is understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19733]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has attracted more inward investment than any other country in the European Union, and more than France and Germany combined? Is that not the hardest possible evidence that the United Kingdom is well on its way to being the enterprise centre of Europe?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Don't forget the social chapter and the minimum wage.

The Prime Minister: I am in the happy position of being prompted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to remind the House of the perils of the social chapter and the minimum wage. I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are indeed very damaging to the employment prospects of people in this

country, and I look forward to his support in denouncing them at every opportunity so that his constituents may stay in work rather than out of work.
As for the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I certainly intend to keep the advantages that he mentioned at the forefront of the country's mind. Our policy is to put British jobs and British business first. Investors are attracted here by low costs and flexible working practices; we intend to maintain those, and to improve them. [Interruption.] In case the hon. Member for Bolsover is in any doubt, I repeat: no social chapter and no minimum wage.

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19735]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: If the Prime Minister is really concerned about the missing feel-good factor in areas such as Glasgow, will he agree to spend a day in the city with the new Lord Provost, Pat Lally, and talk to people and see for himself the severity of the problems caused by unemployment and poverty? If he were to do that, he might realise precisely why now is the time for a change.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would stand back and look at the prosperity and opportunity that now exists in Scotland, he would see a total sea change from the situation that we inherited from the last Labour Government. If he would seek two or three cities throughout the United Kingdom that have shown the greatest improvement in that period, his own city of Glasgow would be among them.

Mr. Redwood: Will the Government overturn any European Court of Justice judgment which damages our social chapter opt-out?

The Prime Minister: As I have indicated, we intend at the intergovernmental conference to try to prevent the misuse of health and safety legislation to bypass the social chapter opt-out. That is a matter that we shall address directly at the IGC, with the intention of achieving the aims set out by my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 3 and 11 August last year, proposals were put to Bradford local authority's emergency planning officer that 1 million people in Yorkshire should be evacuated. Have you received any communication to that effect from the Secretary of State responsible or from Bradford council, because it is immensely serious that 1 million people in that part of the world should have to move house?

Madam Speaker: I have had no communication, either last August or at any other time, on that matter. It is a matter that would not concern me as Speaker of the House, although I understand that it may concern the hon. Lady, who represents an area in Yorkshire.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which relates directly to you. I have been reading the European Commission's directive on the 48-hour week, and it seems to me that, without special dispensation from the European Court, you will not be entitled to do your job for us in the House, because you are required by the House to be on duty for far more than 48 hours a week. I wonder whether you will also read that directive and realise that perhaps you will have to go into job sharing.

Madam Speaker: I wonder who would determine who would share my job. I shall certainly read the directive, but as I have worked for more than 48 hours a week for the past 25 years, it would not be anything new for me to continue to do so.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson). In the light of the information yesterday about Yorkshire Water's plan to evacuate 1 million people, should not a Minister come to

the House and make a statement, because the consequences of evacuating 1 million people would be dire?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Minister seeks to make a statement on that matter, but there are always opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise these matters, particularly on Wednesday mornings, and, of course, in the evening, in Adjournment debates.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose—

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has already had one. He cannot have a further point of order.

Mrs. Mahon: I am sure that it was a mistake, but, during Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister answered a question on the number of disconnections that have been made since the privatisation of the electricity industry. The fact is that there have been many more disconnections, because of the increase in prepayment meters and the fact that people now disconnect themselves because of the huge growth in poverty. I am sure that he did not mean to mislead the House, but those are the facts.

Madam Speaker: That may be a matter of interest to some hon. Members, but it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Bruce: rose—

Madam Speaker: I have already allowed the hon. Member to raise one point of order. It was a most interesting one and I have promised to read an EC directive, which will be enormously painful for me.

Mr. Bruce: On a point of information, then, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should come to my office if he wishes to take the matter further. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is waiting to present a ten-minute Bill.

Representation of the People (Amendment)

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts; and for related purposes.
I am grateful for this opportunity to seek the leave of the House to introduce this measure. Against the background of the great concern that Members of Parliament should act with probity at all times and that the working of the House should be beyond reproach, we have taken a number of decisions to bring about change. However, there is one area which falls beyond the scope of our new regulations on standards and interests and which we need to address. That is the payment of money to individuals seeking election to this place directly to assist them with their careers.
There are occasions when philanthropic or otherwise paternalistic assistance is to be encouraged. Equally, I have no problem with the sponsorship of candidates by trade unions and other bodies, provided that it is properly declared, and a candidate does not sacrifice his or her integrity or right to speak and vote without hindrance. However, what does concern me is a recent practice by which potential candidates are paid money on the basis that they will promote certain views and exercise their influence in this place to further the interests of those who pay them. That is an abuse of the House, and a corruption of the institution of Parliament.
On this occasion, I point the finger of accusation directly at EMILY and those behind that organisation. EMILY is an acronym for "Early Money is Like Yeast"—which makes dough rise—and it involves the payment of money directly to candidates—and for their training and expenses—who support the Labour party and are pro-abortion.
More specifically, Emily's List leaflets state:
Applicants for sponsorship must fulfil Labour Party Parliamentary Criteria, support the programme and values of the Party, and be pro-choice in line with the 1992 Labour Party election manifesto".
That 1992 manifesto commitment was to increase access to abortion so that it was
equally available in every region".
This move financially to assist women candidates, we were told by The Scotsman of 4 February 1995, involved payments of £1,000 to candidates, coupled with an additional £650-worth of training. The same article tells us that a number of Opposition women Members, including several who are on the Front Bench, were founding members of the organisation, and it is widely held that tacit support and possibly preferential treatment is given to Emily's List women during the Labour party's candidate selection process.
What concerns me and should concern the House is not that there are those who are willing to assist women Labour party candidates, but that there are those seeking election to the House who believe that it is acceptable effectively to sell their souls in this way to achieve selection, and ultimately election.
Many hon. Members in all parts of the House hold views that differ widely from mine on the issue of abortion and the sanctity of human life at its most

vulnerable. I do not share their views, but I have no reason whatever to doubt the honesty and integrity with which they are held. I am sure that many hon. Members who take such a pro-abortion stance will endorse my condemnation of a practice that effectively denies women candidates in the Labour party access to preferential advancement unless they will sacrifice their principles. Surely that cannot be right, and must be stopped. Would we tolerate the Ford Motor Company being able to pay candidates who gave a commitment to vote for the abolition of vehicle excise duty?
Lest there be any doubt that I am other than accurately reporting the position, let me quote from a letter, published in the Brentford, Chiswick and Isleworth Times, from Ann Ward, a committee member of Emily's List:
our donors have the right to know how the women they are supporting would vote on the pro-choice issue in the House of Commons".
Anyone has the right to ask candidates how they would vote on any subject, and I encourage them to do so, but to pay money to people who give a commitment to vote a certain way is different. In passing, I record in particular my concern that a major retailer such as Tesco has allowed its name to become tarnished by being associated with the sponsorship of events for that organisation.
Furthermore, there can be no suggestion that EMILY is operating without the tacit support and endorsement of the Labour party. The April 1994 edition of EMILY News tells us that all Labour party regional women's committees are invited to send members to the Emily's List UK selection committee, and that other parts of the party are also invited to nominate members, including the parliamentary Labour women's committee and Labour Members of the European Parliament.
The defence to the accusation of "vote purchasing" usually deployed by Emily's List—for example, when challenged on radio by my good friend the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who has done such stalwart work in exposing this hypocrisy, humbug and corruption—is that it cannot hold a member, once selected, to a commitment given in return for cash. What a bizarre defence that is—my contract to corrupt Parliament is no ground for concern, because I find that I cannot necessarily enforce it.
The first report of the Nolan committee on standards in public life, which quoted from the 1947 declaration of the House, observed:
It is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituency, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of the House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such an outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament".
Paragraph 50 of the same report states that it would be unsatisfactory and possibly a contempt of Parliament if a Member
even if not strictly bound by an agreement with a client to pursue a particular interest in Parliament, was to pursue that interest solely or principally because payment, in cash or kind, was being made.
All existing Members are honourable. I seek the leave of the House to continue that tradition by amending the Representation of People Acts to require candidates receiving financial support from Emily's List to declare


that fact in their election address or on the ballot paper, so that, before deciding how to vote, the public will know that candidates have already sold their soul.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mrs. Marion Roe, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Dame Jill Knight.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)

Mrs. Ann Winterton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 March and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

Orders of the Day — Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. [Relevant document: First report of the Welsh Affairs Committee of Session 1995–96 on the nursery voucher scheme in Wales (House of Commons Paper No. 186).]

New clause 1

VISITS TO ASSESS SUITABILITY OF ESTABLISHMENTS

'No grant may be made to a person providing nursery education under this Act in respect of any premises in which the nursery education is provided unless—

(a) the premises have been visited by an inspector registered in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and
(b) the inspector is satisfied that the premises comply, or can
be expected to comply, with such requirements as to suitability for the provision of nursery education in respect of which grants may be payable as may from time to time be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 14, in schedule 1, page 5, leave out lines 14 to 16.
Government amendment No. 33.

Mr. Kilfoyle: In Committee, there were protracted discussions on all the issues before us today. Unfortunately, despite the well-expressed and cogent arguments of Labour Members, the Government have not seen fit to incorporate our constructive amendments.
New clause 1 and amendment No. 14 deal with safeguards, and provide for a preliminary inspection of institutions wishing to provide nursery education under the scheme, before they start to do so. The document "Nursery Education Scheme: The Next Steps", published by the Department for Education and Employment in January, proposed an application procedure for potential providers of nursery education based on self-assessment of their ability to meet the standards expected of them by the Department. Self-assessment is wholly inadequate.
The next steps document reveals that the self-assessment schedule is
a guide and prompter for in-house discussion with staff.
It then states quite baldly that the schedule
does not need to be completed or returned to the voucher agency.
While the self-assessment schedule may be of use to applicant providers, especially those considering providing nursery education for the first time, self-assessment alone is clearly not a safe basis on which to entrust the vital responsibility of providing high-quality nursery education for young children.
The purpose of new clause 1 is simple—to plug the yawning gap in the inadequate arrangements proposed by the Secretary of State between the initial validation and the final validation of providers, which is quite properly dependent on providers being assessed and inspected. The next steps document says that inspection for final validation
will normally take place in the first year of participation.
The new clause would impose a preliminary visit by a properly qualified and registered inspector. That would improve the scheme, and would offer a necessary safeguard to assure parents that a provider had been able to satisfy a registered inspector that he met the required standards, or, in the professional judgment of the inspector, could be expected to meet them within a reasonable time.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree, based on his experience, that a scheme must be up and running before it can be thoroughly inspected? Has he had experience in his constituency, as I have in mine, of people who are anticipating becoming providers taking enormous trouble to ensure that they have the proper qualifications and premises? That is the stage at which they get the necessary advice.

Mr. Kilfoyle: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I will touch on the vital people in this process—the inspectors. He knows from his experience as a teacher, as I do from mine, the value that qualified, capable inspectors can bring to the whole educational process in our schools. He referred to schemes having to be up and running. Maintained and private nurseries are up and running, as are playgroups, and they will be incorporated in the scheme.
We are trying to achieve a comprehensive framework to govern all providers and ensure that they provide the necessary standards of nursery education that I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree are desirable. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the arrangements for such visits by a registered inspector.
Amendment No. 14 is about the registration visits themselves. Local education authority-maintained nursery schools and classes now have to be inspected under section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which means that once every four years an inspection is carried out by a team of Ofsted-accredited inspectors led by a registered inspector, according to Ofsted's framework for inspection, as is required for all primary and secondary schools.
The amendment would delete the exemption of the maintained sector, thus requiring existing maintained nursery education facilities to be inspected under the arrangements being set up by the Bill. Technically, that would require double inspection-but in practice, as Ofsted is responsible for both systems, it would be foolish for it to do anything other than carry out a single process that met both sets of criteria. In effect, that would mean using the more rigorous framework currently in place for all mainstream schooling. It would therefore be necessary to adopt the same framework for private and voluntary provision too.
The Government are likely to argue that it would be pointless to require two inspections, and to try to suggest that the Opposition amendment is really about applying the less rigorous requirements to maintained schools. That is a seductive but false argument.
As for the inspection framework, there is no doubt that the requirements under the 1992 Act for the maintained sector are significantly more rigorous than those envisaged for the new voucher providers. The difference between the Ofsted framework and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's document on desirable outcomes for nursery education can be illustrated by two quotations.
The guidance on the inspection of nursery and primary schools published by Ofsted late last year says:
The inspection of subjects and the provision for pupils under five should focus on pupils' attainment and progress; teaching and other aspects of provision which make a significant contribution to what is achieved; and pupils' response.
On the other hand, the SCAA, in its publication, "Nursery Education: Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning On Entering Compulsory Education", says something qualitatively different:
Confirmation of validation will be based on a judgement, through inspection, about the extent to which the quality of provision is appropriate to the desirable outcomes in each area of learning rather than on the achievement of the outcomes themselves by individual children".
If we are concerned to achieve the desirable and laudable objectives, we must consider inspectors' qualifications. There is concern among educators about the level of qualification of the inspectors who carry out the work. Currently, to be a member of an inspection team undertaking an Ofsted contract, inspectors must be qualified teachers with significant relevant experience. They are also expected to demonstrate the professional skills associated with education inspection and advice during a week's course run by Her Majesty's inspectorate.
The course is designed to accredit prior skills rather than to train beginners from scratch, and most Ofsted-accredited inspectors were already HMI or local authority inspectors and advisers before the introduction of the new system. That means, as we would expect, that they are widely experienced and capable people. To become a registered inspector—the person qualified to lead a team—it is necessary to take a further, more rigorous course.
There is already a shortage of qualified inspectors with nursery experience, and there have been problems in maintaining the timetable for inspecting such provision within Ofsted's current four-year timetable.
Early consultation by Ofsted revealed that suitable "initial selection criteria" for individuals wishing to become inspectors for private or voluntary sector providers of nursery education do not specify qualified teacher status, but include national vocational qualification level 2 in child care, the City and Guilds caring for children certificate, the Business and Technician Education Council nursing diploma, and Nursery Nurses Education Board qualifications. Those qualifications are not sufficient to secure a job as an ordinary teacher in a local education authority nursery school. To suggest that they might be adequate for inspectors is astonishing. That is turning the whole logic of inspection as understood in the maintained sector on its head.
The Association of Advisers for the Under-Eights and their Families wrote to Ofsted to register its "dismay, disappointment and frustration" at the "totally inappropriate" qualifications specified. Its letter concluded:
It is essential that the professionals who will be inspecting provision for the voucher scheme are seen to be credible, knowledgeable, early years personnel, with appropriate training and expertise.
The Opposition say amen to that.
Government amendment No. 33 improves the wording of paragraph 13 of schedule 1 and allows the chief inspector to set a time limit for the production of a report by the person conducting the inspection. It allows the limit to be extended by a maximum of three months. It provides for regulations to prescribe that copies are sent "without delay", whatever that may mean, to authorities and other persons—again, I wonder what that means.
That seems to meet a requirement that we attempted to introduce in Committee in amendment No. 87. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will bear me out, because he tabled amendments Nos. 21 and 90 to effect such a change. I hope that the Government are at last beginning to respond to the constructive arguments that were put in Committee and that will continue to be made in this debate.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I support new clause 1, which is important because, throughout the Bill's consideration, the Opposition have tried to table amendments that would raise the quality of the education offered to children in this so-called expansion of nursery education provision. Throughout our proceedings, Ministers have said that they support that intent, but every time we have put a practical proposal to the vote, Ministers have failed to support it. If they do not accept new clause 1 and other amendments, people will realise that the nursery voucher scheme has nothing to do with providing quality nursery education for our young children.
At present, a new establishment that wishes to be eligible to accept nursery vouchers, and therefore to educate our four-year-olds, has to go through a system of validation, to get which it has to fill in a form. It is sent to Capita management consultancy, which has been employed by the Government in the first phase of the scheme. Capita has, by the Minister's own admission, no staff with educational qualifications.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), wrote to me to say:
During Committee on Thursday, you asked whether any members of staff of Capita Managed Services Ltd employed on the nursery voucher scheme are qualified teachers, former HMI or nursery specialists.
I can now confirm that they are not".
The organisation responsible for validating the new settings, which will miraculously emerge as the result of the demand-led voucher schemes, has no education specialists on its staff. If we are to raise the quality of what is on offer to our young children, it is simply not good enough to allow such settings to be validated without an inspection.
4 pm
I fear that Ministers will not accept the new clause, because they know that they probably could not implement it. It is important for the House to know the inspectorate's capacity for dealing with the so-called expansion of nursery provision. Ministers have never denied that there are only three qualified inspectors of nursery provision on the staff of Ofsted. A further 200 inspectors are contracted by Ofsted to carry out the inspection of nursery education settings in nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools.
Everyone, including Ofsted, recognises that 4,000 inspectors will be needed to meet the new inspection requirements of this important early educational provision for our young children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said, that will probably mean a lowering in the standard of those employed to carry out the crucial task of inspecting the quality on offer to our young children. Is it true that it is considered appropriate for people with NVQ2 qualifications to carry out the inspection? Perhaps, when the Minister replies to the debate, we shall be given the answer.
I am keen that we should welcome people with all sorts of qualifications and backgrounds to work with children under five, but it is inappropriate for people with NVQ2 qualifications to undertake crucial inspections to ensure that settings for under-fives are of the correct standard. The Government should come clean about how they intend to find 4,000 inspectors. There are also serious questions to be asked about how the policy is progressing.
We know very little about what training the Government intend for those they recruit as inspectors. As I understand it, Ofsted is considering four half-days' training for those who carry out inspections. The lack of staff with relevant qualifications employed by the Department means that training will be carried out by the people who should be conducting the inspections. That is simply not good enough, and is a matter of great concern to us.
We need to know whether that is why the Government will not ensure that a proper inspection of settings takes place before they are validated as appropriate for use for the nursery voucher scheme. I also want to know what action the Government intend to take to improve the situation.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Nursery schools and classes were formerly inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors of education. In Committee, it was my understanding that, while nursery schools and nursery classes are now inspected by Ofsted, under the Government's proposals—to which we are objecting in the form of new clause 1—it would be possible for the inspectors whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) describes to have lower qualifications than the nursery teachers they inspect. If that is so, should not the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), address that problem when he replies to the debate?

Ms Hodge: I agree entirely with the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and I hope that the Minister addresses it during his reply to the debate. Inspection is crucial to quality, as was said last night in the debate on the space


standards in our schools and the deregulation of those standards. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment stated that it was not the space standards that mattered but the quality of the teaching in ensuring that an appropriate offer was being made to our children.
The Labour party argues that both count, but we agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that quality of teaching counts, and that it is a crucial factor in how good an offer there is for young children. If the quality of teaching matters, someone has to inspect it. As the Labour party says in the new clause, it is appropriate and important that inspections be carried out before we allow these settings to teach a whole generation of four-year-olds.
I shall tell hon. Members why that is so important. Approximately 400,000 people are currently working with children aged under five—of those people, 10 per cent. have no qualifications at all; of those people working with children in the nursery class or nursery school setting, in the maintained setting, over half do not have qualifications to teach; and the remainder have a range of qualifications. In that context, where there has not been an enormous investment in the training of those who are working with children at this crucial age, it is absolutely imperative—it is totally vital—that there should be an inspection prior to the validation of a setting to ensure that those who are working with young children have appropriate skills and experience, if not qualifications, to carry out their tasks.
There is a lack of provision for training. In fact, Ministers in this Government were responsible for cutting the very little training that existed in the grant for education support and training budget for those working in the nursery education sector. Between 1990 and 1993, just under £10 million was available for training this group of staff, and that funding has been cut.
The Government's commitment to a quality offer for four-year-olds is very much up in the air: there is a group of people working with children who have a variety of qualifications, if any at all; the Government have cut the part of the training budget that could assist in raising quality; and in the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme, the Government have not set aside any money for training—which is something that the Labour party has asked for time and time again.
There is not much evidence in the Bill—which has been debated for many hours in Committee—that the Government are concerned about quality, although there are currently concerns in that respect. The best evidence we have—which we used extensively in the discussions in Committee—is a survey carried out by Her Majesty's inspectors entitled "A Survey of Provision for Under-Fives in the Play Group and Maintained Sectors in Wales: Inspected During Academic Year 1994–95".
The survey looked at playgroups—the new settings which will be eligible for vouchers—and at the maintained sector. I shall quote briefly from the document, because I believe that hon. Members should be aware of it. I refer to the playgroups sector. On page 19, the inspector, talking about the quality of what was on offer to our children in the playgroup sector, said:
Standards in the development of children's pre-reading and early reading skills are satisfactory in about a fifth"—
20 per cent.—
of the play groups … In around four-fifths of the groups, although reading materials are readily available for the children to handle and use, not enough is done to foster positive attitudes to books in a systematic way.

Four fifths of those playgroups that were inspected in Wales by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in Wales fell down on the key aspect of preparing children to read.
The report says:
Few opportunities are created in any of the playgroups to develop children's early writing skills through play and practical experiences".
On page 22, in its conclusions about the maintained sector, the report says:
There is a continuing need to improve standards in some aspects of the work, especially the development of skills for later learning in technology (65% of the schools), the development of knowledge and skills in the scientific area of learning (30% of the schools), the development of children's feelings and ideas in the aesthetic and creative area of learning (30% of the schools), the development of early reading and writing skills (25% of the schools) and aspects of the work in the mathematical area of learning (10% of the schools). The need is greatest in reception classes and mixed-age infant classes in primary schools.
In its conclusion about the playgroup sector, the report says:
Standards need to be improved in most aspects of the work. Particular attention should be paid to improving standards in the development of early literacy, the use of mathematical language and the skills needed for later learning in history, geography, science and technology.
That all shows that, in part of the United Kingdom where a proper inspection did take place, standards were sorely lacking. Despite that, Ministers are seriously suggesting that we should introduce a new range of settings—which may require the validation of as many as 12,000 new settings once the scheme is running nationwide—without having that early check on whether the quality of what is on offer is appropriate.
Sixty per cent. of what a child learns is learned in the first five years of life; 60 per cent. of his or her intellectual development takes place in those first five years. It is a crucial phase of life. We have got it wrong for far too long. Are we yet again to miss an opportunity of starting to put things right? I fear so, if the Government's proposals are implemented.
In Government amendment No. 33 on inspection, the Government suggest that the inspector should submit a report, but we all know that currently, when an inspection report on a private nursery is completed, it is submitted to those who own and run the nursery, and is not published generally. If our children are to attend private nurseries, and if public money is to be invested in children attending those private nurseries, do the Government intend inspection reports to be published? I hope they do, and I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort on that.
Currently, non-educational institutions—playgroups or nurseries run by the voluntary sector, or private nurseries—must be inspected before they are registered and opened to the public. All we are asking in the new clause and amendment No. 14 is that the rigour that goes into ensuring that the care is of a certain quality should be applied to ensuring that the education is of a certain quality. That is the key to ensuring that children develop their potential. Government resistance to this important new clause would show the world that they do not really care about the quality of nursery education.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I cannot think of the Bill without thinking of it in the context of the changes to the Education (School Premises) Regulations


1981 that were debated yesterday. The Bill and those changes seem to amount, among other things, to an attempt to push early years education towards the private sector, cheapness and, potentially, overcrowded and overstressed conditions. Those dangers should be monitored and checked by proper inspection procedures, as laid out in new clause 1.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was quite right to say that we cannot inspect something that is not already there; however, the new clause places stress on "the premises" subject to the inspection. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) was quite right to say that a very early check is needed. That is a sensible way in which to think of the new clause.
To my mind, it is quite improper, and possibly risky, for young children to be gathered in units that, for at least one year, are self-assessed by people who have a strong financial interest in ensuring that the self-assessment is positive. The assessment would then be sent to Capita, but numerous recent early-day motions have already cast considerable doubt on that organisation. Of course, the need for inspection applies not only to premises but to the quality of the activity and the personnel involved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said.
The voucher system will inevitably drive the centre of gravity in early years education away from comprehensive nursery schools and classes, which are financed and organised by local authorities, towards a provision that has been hurriedly scrambled together by individuals and companies. Some of the people involved in that provision will no doubt be excellent, but others will be out to grab and cash as many vouchers as possible before the inspector arrives and possibly closes their nurseries down.
The expansion of early years education, which all parties in the House seek, clearly should not be governed by a system that takes large amounts of public money and pumps it into the provision of what might be no more than child minding, in places that could not accommodate activities other than basic child minding—although the facilities might pass muster in the social services' inspection under the Children Act 1989.
The inspectorate must be mindful of the quality of learning experience for all the four-year-olds who will be placed in schools by vouchers. It must especially take into account all the recent research, which has demonstrated beyond peradventure the crucial educational and social benefits that accrue from high-quality early years education.
It is, of course, also important that the quality of the inspectorate is of the highest standard. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Barking have already commented on inspectors' qualifications—NVQ2 is perhaps not what we would seek as an ideal qualification for an inspector.
The Bill also contains nothing about training, either for the new nursery teachers—no planned expansion is envisaged in that respect—or for the new inspectors. Parents who live in areas that have never offered early years education provision before will no doubt be relieved that it will be available, but they may plump for whatever is offered. The new clause offers them at least a basic assurance about standards, in a sphere of education with which, by definition, they cannot be familiar. As the

unit—I can think of no better word; it may be a class—is already in place, they will trust that it is totally acceptable, and they may find out otherwise rather too late. That is why early inspection is tremendously important.
In contemplating new clause 1, the Government have to bear in mind how brief but vital nursery education is. It is all over in 12 months—or 18 months if the child is fortunate—and by then a child may already have formed educational patterns. A bad or insufficient nursery experience may produce individual or collective tragedy. Early inspection would attempt to avoid that, so I hope that the Government will look favourably on what I consider to be a sensible and moderate new clause.

Mr. Mike Hall: By way of introduction to my support for this essential new clause, let me draw the attention of the House to the principle on which the nursery voucher scheme is based. Under the nursery voucher scheme, public money will be used to subsidise private sector play schemes. It may even subsidise private sector child minding and other schemes that may or may not provide nursery education as there is nothing in the framework of the Bill to prevent that.
New clause 1 is straightforward and simple. It will demand an inspection of existing provision to ensure that it measures up to what we expect of nursery education before any public money is put into a service. That is a great strength of new clause 1.
I am concerned about the design of the voucher scheme and that it may harm the excellent provision of nursery education in the state sector. I am sure that the wording of the Bill and the way in which the voucher scheme will work—in the absence of an inspection before the private sector will be able to benefit from public money—will lead to a dilution or undermining of existing LEA provision. I am also confident that the way in which the scheme is currently set up means that it will undermine severely the provision of nursery education for three-year-olds. Therefore, new clause 1 commends itself to the House.
I am clear in my own mind that the voucher scheme is nothing more than a political gimmick. It offers no real prospect of providing high-quality nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. I say that confidently as someone who has read "Education: A Framework for Expansion", which was published in 1972 by the then Secretary of State for Education. It committed the Conservative Government of the day to providing high-quality nursery education. The fact that it was never delivered does not deter from the aims and objectives of "Education: A Framework for Expansion", which recognised the benefits that a good nursery education would bring to pupils' prospects and to levering up standards in the state system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has already said, 60 per cent. of learning takes place in those early years. It is therefore essential that we get nursery education right and plan for it properly. What the Government appear to be doing is designed more to please the Conservative party conference than to improve the quality of our state education.
Had the Secretary of State for Education and Employment had her own way, I am certain that she would have not chosen such an approach. She knows full well that the voucher scheme is unwieldy and a bureaucratic


nightmare. We are debating the Bill only because last October the Prime Minister promised the Conservative party conference that we would have a voucher scheme. I am sure that that is not the way to plan the best education for primary school children, who need first-class nursery education.
The Secretary of State was right to say on 19 October 1994 that, despite some people's opinions, voucher schemes were unwieldy. She also said in The Times Educational Supplement of 7 April 1995 that vouchers were not the favoured option. In fact, it was only because of the Prime Minister's commitment at the Tory party conference that she had to change her mind. He said:
I have asked Gillian Shephard to work up proposals to provide places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish them to take it up … What I am doing is giving you a cast iron commitment that it will happen".

Mr. Spearing: The Prime Minister certainly did commit the party to a voucher scheme, but he also said that he would provide nursery education for all four-year-olds. The Government seem to intend to make it available to some, but it will not be nursery education as we know it today.

Madam Speaker: Order. That question invites the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor to go even wider, and he was already making what seemed like a Second Reading speech. I hope that he will not pursue the intervention.

Mr. Hall: You are of course right, Madam Speaker. I was coming to the point that we need inspections of nursery education before handing over taxpayers' money to private sector institutions. Certainly, high-quality nursery education should be available to all four-year-olds, as the Prime Minister said it would be. But it was clear from the debates in Standing Committee that it is not going to happen.
This is a very poor Bill; we make no bones about the fact that we do not like its contents. New clause 1 in no way substitutes for poor legislation: it just tries to make the best of a bad job. One way of ensuring that the money voted by Parliament is spent for the intended purpose is to carry out inspections of private sector premises to ensure that they truly provide what we would expect to be done in the name of nursery education.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked that
no provider will be brought into the nursery voucher scheme unless the DFEE and the Welsh Office are satisfied that they meet the educational standards which can be gleaned from reports carried out by Ofsted, the Audit Commission and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 193.]
My hon. Friend wanted to be quite sure that all premises were right for nursery education, and that the resources provided would go towards quality education. These establishments and institutions must be committed to curriculum and planning control.
The teachers in these nursery schools must be up to the task of providing high-quality nursery education. New clause 1 seeks reassurances about assessment and record keeping, and about the literacy and numeracy that teachers would hope to instil in the children in their care. We hope that the Government will commit themselves to ensuring that taxpayers' money delivers the goods. New clause 1

calls on Ofsted to go into the private sector institutions providing nursery education and to give us the information that we require.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
Over time, Ofsted inspection reports will help to fill in the picture of the developing pattern of provision. They may also shed light on the most effective way to deliver good quality nursery education.
I do not want to look back in a year's time and find out that the Government may have been able to do that. I want some reassurances now that taxpayers' money will be spent on providing good-quality nursery education. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government on the issue. The Government are prepared to allow the private sector to be involved in nursery provision, to allow public money to be spent on that provision and to inspect the outcome some time in the future. That is not an appropriate approach, and new clause 1 would change it.
4.30 pm
The Under-Secretary also said in Committee:
In case it is not obvious from my remarks, I must flag up for the Committee the fact that many of those matters, by their very nature, will emerge one or two years down the line. I hope that hon. Members agree that it would be unreasonable to wait for definitive outcomes before proceeding with the expansion of nursery education."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 1 February 1996; c. 54.]
I do not think that we need to wait for those definitive outcomes to expand nursery education. We could do that through the state sector and local education authorities. It is unreasonable for the Under-Secretary to ask us to wait for two or three years before we find out whether taxpayers' honest money has been spent efficiently and effectively. That is my difference with the Under-Secretary on that issue.
Whereas in new clause 1 we call for inspections to take place before public money is used, the Government are quite prepared to wait. The Government are not even prepared to set down a target for the number of private sector institutions that will be inspected in the first 12 months. It is clear that many inspections will be needed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, an extra 4,000 inspectors would probably be needed to complete the job in those 12 months. The Government are not even prepared to fix a target for the number of inspections in the first 12 months, and the reason given—it is totally unacceptable—is that those inspections cannot start until the Bill has received Royal Assent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): indicated assent.

Mr. Hall: The Under-Secretary agrees, but there would be nothing wrong with delaying the implementation of the Bill until those inspections had taken place. If the Bill receives Royal Assent in its current form, the inclusion of new clause 1 would give us some reassurance that the Government were committed to inspection to provide high-quality nursery education. The pamphlet "Information for Parents: The Nursery Education Scheme" states:
The Government wants all parents to be able to choose good-quality nursery education for their four-year-old children if they want.


If parents are to make choices about good-quality nursery education, on what will they base their decisions? What will inform their decisions about good-quality nursery education? A step in the right direction would be an Ofsted report that stated that a nursery has the accommodation to provide good-quality education; has designed its curriculum to match the needs of four-year-olds; has well-qualified staff; and has proper assessment plans. That would be the type of qualitative report that new clause 1 would require.
We have seen that the Government have committed themselves to a voucher scheme to provide nursery education. If we are to believe what the Government have said, the voucher, to the value of £1,100, will do a great deal. It will provide two and a half sessions a week of nursery education. It will provide for capital investment in the private sector to supply the 150,000 places that are missing at the moment. That has been recognised in the Government literature on the subject of nursery vouchers. The voucher will also pay for the inspection of the private sector schools. Those £1,100 vouchers will have to go a long way. I am not confident that they will provide nursery places for every four-year-old in the country. I am certain that they will undermine existing provision—and I am confident that, if the Government have the interests of education at heart, they will accept new clause 1. It is a step in the right direction, and would improve what I consider to be a very poor piece of legislation.

Mr. David Jamieson: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), who made some excellent comments in support of new clause 1. I shall not repeat what he said, but try to complement it.
We now have some cross-party accord on at least one feature of the Bill: the parties now agree that nursery education is valuable to children. Less than two years ago, Ministers were telling us that there was no proven connection between nursery education and the quality of a child's learning. Have we not heard the same words in connection with class sizes? Of course, that applies only to local education authority schools, not to the schools to which many Conservative Members send their children.
I also remember a Minister saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was "obsessed" with nursery education. I am happy to say that Ministers are now equally obsessed with it—as are Opposition Members, who are following my hon. Friend's excellent lead. We welcome Conservative Members' conversion to nursery education; but that is where my agreement with the Government ends. We have the right policy, but, alas, the wrong solution.
Let me say a little about the quality and value of inspection. The Government have rightly stressed the need for inspection of all schools. Opposition Members agree: we want to be absolutely sure that nursery school inspectors are meeting the standards that we want for our children, and also meeting the demands of taxpayers whose money is being spent to the tune of nearly three quarters of a billion pounds.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I do not expect the nursery voucher scheme to create many local education

authority places. I think that the vouchers will be used in the private sector. If a huge amount of capital and revenue is to go into that sector, we must ensure that the conditions are right before children begin their education. Nursery education is, after all, education, not child minding. If the conditions are wrong, children will suffer. The conditions must be tried and tested.

Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend's comments are, as usual, well placed. The Bill could penalise authorities that are currently offering a high level of nursery education, and have done so for many years. A point that I hope will arise later in the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I was tolerant in regard to the intervention, but can we now return to the new clause?

Mr. Jamieson: I shall, of course, be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Later, however, we may hear from the Minister how some of the revenue provided by the vouchers could be used for buildings rather than providing nursery education places.
It is vital that people of quality carry out the inspections. We need experienced inspectors with a proper understanding of young children and the way in which they learn; I do not think that the Minister will disagree with that. The inspectors must know what to look for.
Before inspectors carry out inspections, as mentioned in new clause 1, we need people to train them. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, when looking for people to train nursery school inspectors, only the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the Montessori organisation were asked to provide the names of people who could train inspectors. Has the Pre-School Learning Alliance—excellent though it may be—people with sufficient experience to train? Many teachers in the Montessori organisation obtained their qualification through correspondence courses and have done very little follow-up to that qualification, which is not recognised in state schools. They cannot teach in state schools. Yet they have been asked to train the people who will inspect nursery schools.
I believe that a letter was sent out a short while ago to those two organisations and that the trainers have been offered a whole two days' training to train the inspectors. If they pass the training in April and May, they will be offered a further session in July just to ensure that they are competent to do the job. I understand that the people who will train the inspectors have only the equivalent of national vocational qualification level 2 in child care, which is just above GCSE grade 4. Yet they will train inspectors to inspect nursery schools to see whether they are appropriate. I should be grateful if the Minister would address that point, because I notice that, last week, The Guardian and The Times Educational Supplement—an excellent choice by the Department for Education and Employment and Ofsted—advertised for inspectors. Before the inspectors are in place, we need to know whether the people training them have the competence and quality to do so.
New clause 1 has been cobbled together in a hurry and it has many deficiencies, not least those that I have just pointed out.

Mr. Richards: It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that what we have heard so far has been nothing more than a rerun of what we heard in Standing Committee—

Mr. James Pawsey: And a boring rerun, at that.

Mr. Richards: As my hon. Friend says, it has been a boring rerun, with Opposition Members seeking to find ways and means of tripping up the private and voluntary sector.
We are introducing a number of important safeguards to ensure the quality of provision at participating institutions before inspection, which means that there is no need for the provision sought in new clause 1. First, we are accepting applications only from certain categories, or types, of institutions that we are confident will be able to provide good-quality education. These include maintained schools, finally registered independent schools, local authority day nurseries and institutions registered under the Children Act 1989.
Providers registered under the Children Act have their premises inspected annually by social services departments, and maintained schools are covered by the school premises regulations.

Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Richards: In a moment. Let me finish this point.
New regulations were laid before Parliament on 22 February, to come into force on 1 September 1996. Hon. Members will be aware, from the lengthy discussions that have taken place on this subject in Committee, that we intend to deregulate minimum teaching and recreation areas in maintained schools, but they will know equally well that we are retaining the standards that bear on health and safety to safeguard the welfare of children.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Richards: I give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister just told the House that he will accept applications only from certain categories of organisation and institution to participate in the scheme. Will he tell the House which part of the Bill gives effect to the proposal that he has just announced?

Mr. Richards: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the arrangements that we are making under clause 1 will ensure that that is indeed the case.
Secondly, all participating institutions will have to work towards the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority desirable learning outcomes, and those on which we await advice from the ACAC organisation in Wales. The quality and standards of education that they provide will be subject to rigorous inspection. To provide good-quality education and work towards the outcomes, providers will need to ensure that their premises are suitable. We intend to inspect all private and voluntary providers within the first year. As explained in Committee, the inspections cannot begin

until the Bill has been enacted and it has come into force. Given the large number of providers involved, it would be impracticable to inspect them all at once. To insist on inspection before registration, as the amendment attempts to do, would delay the expansion of nursery education and would stifle parental demand.

Mr. Spearing: I take the Minister back a few sentences to the inspection of premises. He referred to the fact that school inspections would be carried out under school premises regulations, but we know that schools have no space. Yesterday evening, the Secretary of State told me that, of course, they would be also be inspected under the Children Act. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Act contains minimum space requirements and, if so, what they are for the establishments that will be inspected under the Bill?

Mr. Richards: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. On the criteria by which inspections are made under the Children Act, I do not know off the top of my head whether space is a criterion, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know in due course.

Ms Hodge: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Richards: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Hampson: Frankly, is not this a farce? Why do not we simply say to those people opposite that space, size, quality of classroom—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a parliamentary phrase. All Members are honourable Members, not people.

Dr. Hampson: I am delighted—if my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will allow me to continue the point and respond to the Chair—because I thought that, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were criticising the word "farce". It is a farce because Opposition Members seem to ignore the central point—education. The quality of the way in which we educate young people has nothing to do with a physical place. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but one can go to the most clapped out medieval buildings that are some of the best schools in the country—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr. Hampson: Mark Twain said that it was the quality of the mind at the other end of the log. It is well known. Research in the past decade shows that there is no positive relationship at all between premises and the quality of education.

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point when he speaks of Labour Members, who are far more concerned with providing occupation for their friends in local education authorities than with providing good-quality nursery education for the children of this country.

Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked about inspections under the Children Act 1989. Guidance under that Act states that it is desirable that 2.3 sq m should be available per child. I stress that that is guidance under the Act.

Mr. Hall: rose—

Mr. Richards: I should like to make a little progress. Opposition Members are getting a little excited. They should calm themselves.
The self-assessment schedule will be an important and additional safeguard of quality. It will let providers know what is expected of them before they join the scheme. Providers are unlikely to apply to join the scheme unless they are confident that they can meet the requirements that are expected of them. It would be a poor advertisement for an institution to enter the scheme only to be ejected from it a few months later. As a final safeguard of quality, providers will also have to publish information for parents which includes the details of their premises. I ask the House to reject new clause 1.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide for periodical inspection by registered nursery education inspectors of maintained primary schools that have nursery classes and of maintained nursery schools that are already subject to periodical inspection under section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 by inspectors registered under that Act. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton
(Mr. Kilfoyle) forecast, such a duplication of effort would be unhelpful. The introduction of two separate cycles of inspection by separate inspectors would cause unnecessary disruption in schools and it could hardly be considered an efficient use of taxpayers' money.
In undertaking periodical inspections of schools under the 1992 Act, inspectors registered under that Act are required to report on the quality and standards of education that are provided in the same way as registered nursery education inspectors are required to report. In doing that, they will have regard to specific guidance provided by Ofsted and by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales on the inspection of early years education. From 1 April 1996 inspectors who are registered under the 1992 Act will apply the general guidance for inspection of primary schools, which also covers early years issues. Therefore, the quality of nursery education that is provided by schools that are subject to inspection under the 1992 Act is already being monitored by Ofsted and by OHMCI in Wales. I can see no reason to introduce an additional, separate inspection cycle for such schools.
I shall now deal with some matters that were raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Walton suffers from a misunderstanding about the inspection of nursery provision in the maintained sector. Inspections in that sector and of private and voluntary sector schools will be undertaken in accordance with the guidance that has been issued by Ofsted and OHMCI. The guidance will apply to nursery provision across all sectors, which means that there is no question of private sector or voluntary sector inspections being any less thorough than those that are carried out in the maintained sector.
The hon. Members for Walton and for Barking (Ms Hodge) and some other hon. Members asked about the qualifications of inspectors. The chief inspector will

have to be satisfied that inspectors are capable of performing the task, and he will require them to undergo training that is appropriate for each one. The hon. Member for Barking suggested that Capita Managed Services would validate the quality of education to be provided on the basis of the self-assessment questionnaire. Plainly, she did not read the letter that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), sent to her on that very matter. For ease of reference, perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to read part of my hon. Friend's letter. In paragraphs 2 and 3 the letter states:
Capita have no need for educational specialists. Their responsibility is only for administering the issue and redemption of vouchers, not for any of the educational aspects of the scheme.
In particular, Capita is not involved with making judgments about educational quality. The Department has set out in its contract with Capita a tight framework within which Capita administers its part of the scheme.
I have addressed the matters of issue and qualifications. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) asked who had been contacted about the possibility of training. Ofsted contacted not only the Pre-School Learning Alliance and Montessori: it contacted other organisations including the Independent Schools Joint Council, the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and the National Private Day Nurseries Association. It will be for Ofsted to decide the training and qualifications that will be needed.

Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Richards: I should prefer to make some progress on Government amendment No. 33.
I ask the House to reject amendment No. 14. In Committee, Opposition Members tabled several amendments about the production and distribution of inspection reports. The amendments were not selected for discussion, but they raised important issues which we think merit inclusion in the Bill. We have always contended that inspection reports should be produced and distributed within a reasonably short time.
For the sake of clarity, we are persuaded that it would be helpful to make legislative provision for the time scale within which inspectors should produce reports. We think that it would be sensible to follow the model contained in section 208(2) of the Education Act 1993 so that the report is made within a period prescribed by regulations, subject to any extension that the chief inspector considers necessary. Such extensions would be limited to the prescribed period plus three months. The power to make extensions will cover unexpected events, such as an inspector's illness, which could lead to delays.
It also seems sensible that on receiving the report the chief inspector should distribute copies of it without delay, and that is achieved by amendment No. 33. As introduced, the Bill provided for a copy to go only to the inspected provider of the nursery education. On reflection, we think that it will often be appropriate for others to be sent a copy of the inspection report and the amendment provides for such further distribution to be covered by regulations. Of course, the regulations will prescribe that copies of the inspection report should be distributed to the provider.

Mr. Hall: I apologise for interrupting the Minister in his reading of what is quite clearly a prepared brief. Who will pay for the inspections? Will it be the school—the private sector institution—and, if it is, will the cost come out of the £1,110?

Mr. Richards: In England it will come out of the Ofsted budget and in Wales the OHMCI budget will cover inspections.
There will need to be provision for copies of the reports to go to the LEAs in respect of their schools; to the Department of Social Security in respect of providers registered under the Children Act, and to the Department for Education and Employment and the Welsh Office in respect of independent schools. I ask the House to accept amendment No. 33.

Mr. Don Foster: It was right of the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) to draw our attention to the kernel of the debate. As others have said, hon. Members on both sides of the House now recognise the importance and value of early years education, but the critical point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, South is that we do not want any sort of nursery education or early years education. To achieve the successes and benefits that we want, the provision must be of high quality. The concern expressed by many Opposition Members in Committee was that there was no evidence that the provision that we would gain would be of high quality. That is relevant to new clause 1.
5 pm
In Committee, we made the point, which is worth reiterating, that, in revenue terms, a £1,100 voucher, if that is to be its value, is insufficient to provide high-quality provision. It will certainly be insufficient to provide additional resources for capital work on any new premises that are to be built or for the training of additional teachers and ancillary assistants who will be needed. As a result, there is a fear that the additional provision that may be created, and that the Government suggest the Bill will create, is likely to be of low quality. That is why it is so critical that, before state money—taxpayers' money—is handed over for such provision, there is at least some initial quick health check to ensure that we can be satisfied that new providers are likely to provide the sort of quality provision that we want.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I intervene only to underline that there is a health check, literally, in relation to all Children Act 1989 registration—an annual inspection. It is one of the three main alternative requirements that every provider must have.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall return to that point because it is important.
When the Minister responded from the Dispatch Box to those concerns, he assured us that a problem did not exist because the Government would accept applications only from certain categories of provider or organisation. I then intervened on the Minister and asked what assurances had been given and where they appeared in the legislation. The response was that it would be covered by the arrangements that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment

had the power to make. As we know only too well from our study of the Bill, few of those arrangements will return to the House for examination by hon. Members. We should all, therefore, be concerned.

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I happily give way because I hope that the Minister will now give us clause, chapter and verse.

Mr. Richards: To save the hon. Gentleman and the House some time, if he is a little more patient, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment will return to that subject a little later.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister. With that assurance, I shall happily wait. The House wants far clearer assurances than it has received so far.
I was pleased that the Minister tabled amendment No. 33. He has at least recognised, in a small way, some of the many concerns expressed by Opposition Members in Committee. The Minister has agreed to make copies of the report available to a variety of organisations other than the provider. I hope that, when the opportunity arises later, the Minister or one of his Front-Bench colleagues will go into a little more detail about whom they intend to make copies available to. The Minister mentioned the local education authority. I am delighted about that because I proposed it in Committee. We need far more information than we have received so far about that and about who will be responsible for some of the cost.
The Minister will recall that he told the Committee:
There is already provision in paragraph 13 of schedule 1 for a copy of the inspection report to be sent to the provider. Providers will be required to make copies of the report available alongside other information for parents as a requirement of grant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1996; c. 357.]
We and certainly the providers will need to be clear whether they will be responsible for bearing the cost of making many more copies of the report available, or whether some other source of funding will be made available. If the providers are to supply that funding, it will diminish still further resources to provide high-quality provision.
I hope that, when the opportunity arises later, the Minister or one of his colleagues will say why they were not willing to accept the points that were made in Committee about the importance, before inspection, of consultation with the local education authority on non-local education authority provision. A strong case was made for that. The Minister said that he would consider that point. Many hon. Members will be disappointed that he has considered it, but taken no action.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on one thing: much of what we have heard tonight is a reran of what happened in Standing Committee. That is evidenced by the lack of Back-Bench support for the Government, constructive suggestions from Opposition Members and an especially boring and ill-informed speech from the Under-Secretary.
The reason why we are so concerned is that, on 1 February in Committee, in column 58 of Hansard, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment could not give us any guarantee on inspections of premises. We are naturally concerned, especially when we consider


that, potentially, there are 40,000 providers. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales was concerned about that figure. He told us that the figure was only 28,000 and that the Audit Commission had the figures wrong, but included in the total are 2,900 providers from Wales, of which he had not even been cognisant.
Claims have been made about the categories of institutions that will be catered for under the arrangements, but there is nothing in the Bill. We have heard much about premises being inspected annually. Reference has been made both to the Children Act 1989 and to the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. We know what happened with those regulations last night. I repeat to the Minister: I hope that he learns the difference between prescriptive regulation and optional guidelines, which the Government do not take on board.
The whole point is that we also want inspection of educational quality, which must be at the forefront of everyone's mind.

Mr. Hall: The point about inspection under the Children Act is that it does not do anything about quality; it involves only the registration of premises. It will have nothing to say about the quality of nursery education.

Mr. Kilfoyle: That is the point that I am making. We are concerned with the quality of education as well the environment in which it takes place.
I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that I was not suggesting that we have two cycles of inspection—quite the reverse. I was saying that there could be potential for that, but that we would expect any sensible, well-organised body such as Ofsted to ensure that it did not happen. He made the point that the chief inspector is to be satisfied. That is certainly the case but, given many of the education policies pushed by the Government in recent years, the Under-Secretary is an easily satisfied man.
Having said that, we do not intend to press the matter to a vote. We hope that the Government will see the sense of our arguments, go away and reflect on the valid points made by Labour Members. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

'(1) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that adequate resources are available to a local authority in respect of advice or support provided by it to a child who is receiving funded nursery education other than in a maintained school and who is considered to have special educational needs but in respect of whom no statement under section 168 of the Education Act 1993 has been issued.

(2) In this section "funded nursery education" shall have the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

'(4) Such requirements shall require that—

(a) any nursery education provided by virtue of the grant shall be supervised by a qualified teacher; and
(b) where such nursery education is provided in respect of a child who has special educational needs that it conforms to any Code of Practice in respect of such education which may have been issued by the Secretary of State.'.
Government amendment No. 35.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The new clause will find support on both sides of the House as it deals with a concern expressed by many hon. Members, as well as interested bodies outside the House, about the provision of good-quality education for children with special educational needs. The new clause would ensure extra funding for local education authorities to provide for children at stage 3 of the special educational needs code of practice—stage 4 being a statement—who are in nursery provision outside the maintained sector.
Provision for children under five with special educational needs was extensively discussed in Committee. During our debates, hon. Members on both sides committed themselves to ensuring that such children enjoyed the benefits of nursery education as much as other under-fives. I note that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is in his place. In his private life, he is involved with the Royal London Society for the Blind school at Sevenoaks. I have had the pleasure of visiting that school and I know that it does excellent work and wants to be able to continue to do so.
Many, many children with varying degrees of need—not as extreme as the children at the Royal London Society for the Blind school, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—would benefit from the new clause. Children with statements of special educational needs will be placed in provision by the local education authority. In fact, all but 18 children under five who have statements are in LEA-maintained institutions or non-maintained special schools.
In Committee, the Minister failed to meet almost every single point raised by Labour Members. The one area on which there was agreement was the need to look carefully at the arrangements for children at stage 3 of the SEN code of practice, the stage where the institution begins to consider the need for external support, which would usually come from the LEA—the Minister nods in agreement—but before the formal assessment procedure begins.
I shall remind the Minister of what he said in Committee:
There will be a small number of non-statemented children at level three in non-maintained provision who could require local authority support and, arguably—but not wishing to enter the argument-those numbers may increase as a result of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 242.]
The Minister was suggesting that we may be able to diagnose more children at an earlier stage, which is to be welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I visited the Margaret McMillan school in the much-maligned borough of Islington. We saw the excellent work that can be done if early diagnostic and remedial skills are available in a multidisciplinary approach. That is what is afforded to those very needy children at that school.
The Minister also said in Committee that differential value vouchers would be unlikely to solve the problem. The same criterion apparently does not apply to differentiation on the basis of areas or of special educational needs of a different sort within cities. He made that clear in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). I fail to see why the same criterion cannot apply across the board. Perhaps the Minister will explain later.
The Minister also said in Committee that requiring private and voluntary voucher redeeming bodies to have regard to the code of practice was not a practical way forward, but that discussion would take place with interested parties during phase 1 of the implementation to find a way forward. He then said that he hoped to bring forward a proposal on Report that would clarify the role of the local education authority for children at stage 3 of the code of practice. The new clause is designed to give effect to that ministerial commitment. I shall deal with the Government's amendment later.
5.15 pm
It is clear that, if more children under five are in nursery education, it is likely that any special educational needs will be found earlier, provided there are appropriately trained staff in the private and voluntary sectors. Again, we must deal with the question whether there should be a qualified teacher in every nursery, or at least one having a role in every nursery. LEAs will need to make financial provision for that new work. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that sufficient resources are provided to LEAs to undertake that work.
To implement the code of practice will require, at the very least, qualified teachers supervising nursery providers who do not employ a qualified teacher. That is the key to amendment No. 7. There is wide agreement on the importance of nursery education and the benefits of investing in the education of young children. What is equally clear is the importance of the quality, knowledge and experience of staff if young children are to obtain maximum benefit from the experience. I am sure that the Minister and I are at one on that.
The amendment would achieve the delivery of nursery education under the supervision of a qualified teacher. One of the very great strengths of the nursery education currently provided in maintained nursery schools and classes is that it is provided by properly qualified teachers supported by qualified assistants. Within the current initial teacher training framework, nursery teachers on Bachelor of Education courses receive the same training in terms of rigour and length of course as teachers of primary and secondary age children. They are awarded a degree that has the same status as those awarded to primary and secondary teachers. So should it be, given the tremendous importance of that stage of educational development in determining the whole future of individual children. Again, the Minister nods his agreement. I have to repeat the suspicion voiced many times in Committee that the hon. Gentleman is an ultra soaking wet. That is confirmed by the way that he readily agrees with points made by Labour Members.
Our common approach, in the spirit of consensual politics, to the training of teachers of nursery and primary age children is appropriate, given that the children pass from the nursery stage to the primary stage—a transition

that should be seamless. The significant theoretical components of the training course embrace child development, child psychology, health and safety and the legal background to education, in addition to the range of subject areas in the national curriculum for which pre-school education is a preparation.
Special needs is also covered in great depth in the Bachelor of Education courses. Nursery teachers, as well as undertaking this rigorous academic programme, also spend extended periods in a wide variety of settings on teaching practice, working under the supervision of qualified teachers.
The next steps document states:
The Government considers that qualifications and training are key elements of good quality nursery provision.
We say amen to that. However, the document then immediately states that the Government
sees no need to change the requirements on staff qualifications set out in the Children Act guidance and the DFEE circular.
In effect, that means that in pre-schools and playgroups only half the staff have to hold a relevant day care or education qualification or have to have completed a special training course.
Although there is no doubt that the vast majority of current providers of pre-school provision want to provide quality of care for young children, the distinction between nursery education and care is being blurred by the current proposals. There is no doubt that those with child care skills and qualifications have a significant contribution to make. However, if education—I stress "education"—is to be the focus of the new scheme, the leadership of the institutions making the provision must surely be education professionals.
If the Government are serious about providing high-quality nursery education, it should be delivered by properly qualified teachers. The early years are crucial in the education and development of young children. As the National Commission on Education says in its document "Learning to Succeed", early years teaching is a complex task demanding a high level of skill and understanding.
To digress slightly into my personal experience, I told the Minister and his hon. Friends in Committee about my one and only visit to a reception class, many years ago when I was doing my teacher training. I was horrified by the complexity of the work involved in caring for overcrowded groups of toddlers—work which we may tend to treat as mundane but which is so crucial. That job is a calling. If work in any part of the education system can be described as a vocation, that description must apply to the work of the people who deal with the very early years.
Qualified teachers who have been trained in the appropriate skills and understanding must be the proper people to lead the teams delivering early years education. There can be no justification for applying less rigorous standards of training to staff in that area than we apply to those who work in the later stages of the educational process.
In Committee, the Minister claimed that the qualifications of staff would be
part and parcel of parents' choice
and that
Many parents presumably may be persuaded that qualified teacher status is of greater worth than other qualifications and will be more inclined to take their children into a local education authority setting than into an alternative".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 214.]


I agree, and I hope that that happens, because it reflects parents' demands for their children. They are looking for a professionally led educational experience in an appropriate educational environment. What the Minister said may be true of many parents, but others will assume that the Government have done all that they can to ensure that the providers in any voucher-accepting institution have been trained to a sufficiently high standard.
The Department's pamphlet containing information for parents on nursery education makes no mention of the range of qualifications that staff may have, beyond saying that schools, nurseries and playgroups will need staff who "meet our conditions".
Amendment No. 7 would ensure that those in charge of provider units had been trained to the highest possible standards. It represents an opportunity that should not be ignored. Paragraph (b) would require nursery education given to a child with special needs to conform to the code of practice drawn up under the Education Act 1993.
As many hon. Members will know, but people outside may not, the code sets out stages 1 to 5, along which a child passes as learning problems are identified, and differing levels of resources are devoted to the child's needs at each stage. Although the present code was developed with the maintained sector in mind, it is surely imperative to have a statutory framework within which it can be applied to private providers. Ideally, the same standards would be set.
In Committee, the Minister mentioned that problem and spoke about the need to adapt the code in some shape or form, but he put no meat on the bones of his statement and, both self-evidently and by his own admission, the present code of practice is not intended to cater for providers outside the maintained sector.
I am sure that a "spin", as the spin doctors would say, will be put on Government amendment No. 35. Indeed, that has happened already, and the Government are attempting to portray it as a concession. It will extend an LEA power in section 162 of the 1993 Act so that LEAs
may supply goods or services
to governing bodies to assist with their special needs responsibilities. That is an excellent and laudable aim, but it is not worth the paper it is written on unless the appropriate moneys are made available for LEAs to meet the new demands.
Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked the Minister how provision over and above the value of the voucher would be delivered for children with special education needs. I have yet to be persuaded that anything has changed since the Minister replied:
Local education authorities will keep some of their existing funding for four-year-olds, and be able to spend more than the value of the voucher where needed to offer appropriate provision to pupils with special educational needs".—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 978.]
I welcome the spirit behind that answer, but I must ask the Minister where the funds will come from to meet the demand, especially as, by his own admission, there will be increased demand as we delve further into early years education and learn to diagnose special needs better. I hope that the Minister will answer that question when he replies to the debate.
I am sure that, as the Minister is on the wet left wing of the Conservative party—indeed, he is so far to the left I am surprised that he remains on the Front Bench—he will recognise how cost-effective it is to make the early interventions. Even with normal nursery education, the Ypsilanti study conducted by the university of Michigan showed that about £7 was saved for every £1 invested. If that is true of nursery education in general, how much more true is it of early intervention in cases of special educational need?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who brings practical experience to our debates. I find myself much in agreement with what he said. We may differ as to the means of achieving it, but the objective for both sides of the House is similar.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman twice chided my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for being "damp". Yes, my hon. Friend is a bit damp, but he is redeemed by the fact that, as he is my partner in the House of Commons bridge team, I can assure the House that when he bids he is very dry. He bids boldly and strongly, and I trust that he will do some of that this afternoon.
One of the advantages of the Bill is that it has allowed the House to focus on an aspect of education that we seldom debate—nursery education for children with special educational needs. I can recall few occasions on which the House has debated such provision for the under-fives.
My interest in and knowledge of the subject comes not only from my time as Secretary of State for Education and Science but from the fact that, for the past 18 months, I have had the privilege of raising money for that centre of excellence, the Royal London Society for the Blind school, at Dorton house, Sevenoaks. The hon. Members for Walton and for Barking (Ms Hodge) have visited the school, and it is a splendid institution.
The staff there are over-qualified—or, I should say, fully qualified—and, because of the support that the school has had, they provide a wonderful range of services to children who are either totally blind or seriously visually impaired, and who sometimes have other serious physical disabilities, too. The staff do a remarkable job, train the children for GCSEs and NVQs, and give them the chance to share in life.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Walton that if the process can be started before the age of five, so much the better. There is no doubt that if children with such difficult handicaps can be helped, their sense of isolation can be reduced. Any child who is deaf, blind or seriously physically handicapped has a sense of isolation, and to be brought into contact with other children and with teachers who give them lots of attention and love is an enormous step forward, beyond their family associations.
The social skills are important, and so are the steps towards learning, because education must be there-the capacity to start learning the fundamentals of numeracy and literacy. Such education is very expensive. In the hospital schools, which deal with the most severely handicapped children, the teacher-pupil ratio is 1:1. At schools such as Dorton house, it can be 2:1 or 3:1. Blind children have to be led around, or carried when they are very young.
Such provision is somewhat patchy. For post-five children, local education authorities have fully developed systems to help children with special educational needs. Few children aged two are statemented. Statementing usually begins at some time during the third year, might not be completed in the fourth year and may be done again in the fourth year, rising five.
5.30 pm
Provision for such children is the duty of the local education authority. The single most important residual duty of an LEA is the provision of special education, either from the local authority's resources or from the non-maintained sector. Schools in the non-maintained sector are not spatchcock schools but have considerable skills and facilities and their premises are usually adequate. Although they are not in the maintained sector, they get a great deal of support from the Government in that their post-five children are funded by local education authorities. In the schools that I know, that is not enough. Extra money has to be provided by charitable subscriptions, which is what I have been involved in for the past 18 months.
In Dorton house, there are some 10 to 15 children in the nursery sector—we have just raised money to build a nursery school and there will be more. For those 10 or 15 children, Dorton house gets no money from local education authorities. I think that that also applies to the school in Hereford and Worcester. The children who go to Dorton house have not been statemented, either because the process has not reached that stage or because parents have not asked for their children to be statemented even though they clearly have educational needs. Sometimes such children are halfway through the statementing process. One or two have been statemented, but their parents feel that the provision at Dorton house is better than that offered by the local education authority.
How can we help such schools? On Second Reading, I proposed differential vouchers. That did not find much favour with Ministers or with the Labour party. It was savaged by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), if that is not too strong a word to describe his oratorical style, and dismissed. I still believe that one day we will have a differential voucher system, but that is for the future. I have discovered that education reform is a growing and progressive process.

Dr. Hampson: My right hon. Friend took the big bang approach.

Mr. Baker: The Labour party opposed almost every part of my big bang reform but now supports large parts of it, which I welcome. I do not make a party political point: the Labour party has come to see the wisdom of our proposals. I suspect that in years to come there will be a differential voucher scheme.

Dr. Hampson: My right hon. Friend's great reform Bill embraced a great deal. It is interesting that, yet again, in the past couple of days, the Liberals have accepted a fundamental tenet of Conservative policy—loans for students.

Mr. Baker: That is right. During the passage of the Education Reform Bill, the Liberal spokesman was the

present leader of the Liberal party. He had only a tentative and fugitive knowledge of the Bill. His view was formed as the Bill went through. As we know, his knowledge of the subject is rather shallow, but I welcome the conversion. I am glad that the Liberals have accepted student loans.

Mr. Kilfoyle: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment. I am accepting the support of the Liberal party. Am I going to get the support of the Labour party as well?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, if a differential can be built into vouchers not only on a regional basis, as is apparently being considered by the Government, but for given areas, at the behest of hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), to cover what were formerly educational priority areas, it is beyond the wit of Whitehall to produce a scheme that allows special educational needs to be met in the same way? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Labour party's view that, instead of a differential on vouchers—I doubt whether the Government will have the opportunity to effect it—there should be differential entitlement?

Mr. Baker: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it would be possible to devise a scheme of differential vouchers, once a voucher scheme has been established. We are in the early days, with four authorities at the experimental stage. As I well know, there will be a bedding-in process over the next two or three years. I hope that the Labour party will not decide to abandon the general voucher scheme, because it is an effective way of dealing with under-fives education. That broadens the debate and I want to stick to my point.
I shall deal with entitlement. We all agree that more assistance should be provided for such needs. How best should that be done? The hon. Member for Walton has proposed new clause 2 to seek to do that. As I understand it, Government amendment No. 35 fulfils much the same purpose—I shall come to the money side in a moment—by extending the power of LEAs to make grants to non-maintained schools or other bodies at the moment when the local education authority has determined that extra help is needed and the authority or other person involved does not have it. I welcome that. We will have to see how it operates in the experimental scheme.
In the four authorities, there will be children with special educational needs who were at stage 3 of the code of practice with whom local authorities cannot cope and in respect of whom they must find extra help. They may be able to provide it from their own resources in LEA schools or send the child to a maintained school and provide some extra assistance, such as an extra therapist or part-time help. Let us see how it works. I believe that it is a step forward.

Mr. Pickthall: Has not the right hon. Gentleman described the present situation? My local authority has done that for many years. I suspect that many others have, too.

Mr. Baker: As I said earlier, local authority provision and activity are varied and patchy. From my close involvement with Dorton house over the past 18 months and my experience of other schools that deal with blind


children, I know that what I have described does not happen. I agree that it can happen. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman's local authority does that.
The hon. Member for Walton mentioned that, if the power is exercised, greater costs will be incurred by LEAs. It is no good giving LEAs that power unless resources are provided. The hon. Member for Bridgend is rubbing his fingers as I suppose he does when he waits for the national lottery draw each Saturday night; he wants some money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will intervene in a moment and not only explain Government amendment No. 35 but say that, to the extent that local authorities use that power, they will be reimbursed through the normal procedures of the revenue support grant. If he says that, I hope that the Labour party will not seek to divide the House on the matter. We have always tried not to divide the House on special education. It is a subject on which there should be agreement across the Floor. I hope that if my hon. Friend can give that assurance, the matter will rest; it will rest only for the moment, because I suspect that this is only the first step on what will be a very long road.

Ms Hodge: I wish to respond to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). There is a general acceptance of the importance of special educational needs, particularly at the level of nursery education, and of the importance of early intervention. I have seen that for myself at Dorton house, and in two other instances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) mentioned the Margaret McMillan school in Islington. Children with multiple disabilities came to the nursery school there. Before they came to that school, they had done nothing but lie on the floor of the day centre or wherever they were. They had not responded to any social interaction, and certainly had not started to learn. After one month or so in the Margaret McMillan school—which has the capacity to support them and an environment in which they integrate with other children and where they receive special assistance and additional teaching—they made stunning advances.
The other example is that of a primary school in Northampton with an autistic unit attached to it, which I mentioned in Committee. For the children to have attended the school for two and a half hours a day would have been nonsense. It is necessary to work with the children for a full day in order to help them to develop. The children attended that unit in the primary school at a cost of £8,000 per child and the progress that they made in that resource-intensive environment was stunning.
I ask the right hon. Member for Mole Valley to think again about Government amendment No. 35. At present, there is absolutely nothing to prevent local authorities, if they are so minded, from supplying goods and services to individuals—in the maintained sector or the voluntary or private sector. The amendment is a sop to the right hon. Gentleman and will not change anything; it does nothing to change the statutory framework under which special educational needs are catered for in the nursery sector. The amendment states that a local education authority "may"—not "will"—supply goods or services; it does not change the existing legislative framework.
The costs are horrendous. I have the costs from Dorton house that were supplied to the Minister; they show that teaching a child with profound and multiple learning difficulties costs nearly five times as much as providing nursery education for a child without any difficulties. A child with severe communications difficulties—such an autistic child—costs 3.6 times as much as a child without such difficulties. The costs involved are horrific, and the provision of a permissive power that already exists under the current legislative framework achieves nothing: if we do not ensure adequate resources, it bodes ill for those children for whom the right hon. Member for Mole Valley expresses concern.
The briefing document provided by the Royal London Society for the Blind states that it would cost £3 million to ensure that we have an effective system in place which can cater for that group of children. That is not a large sum in the context of the scheme's total cost; it is not a large sum, even within the context of the new money set aside to introduce the nursery voucher scheme. New clause 2 ensures that money is made available to meet the needs that all hon. Members know to be essential. Those who care for children with special educational needs have a duty to vote with us for the new clause to ensure that the Government make money available specifically for those needs.

Mr. Robin Squire: I welcome the tenor of the debate that we have enjoyed, which echoed that of similar debates that we had in Committee. I make that comment notwithstanding the two further attempts by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to blacken my name and retard my future prospects in an even more public place. However, I would not wish that aspect to be seen to dominate the debate.
I start by repeating our commitment to ensure that children with special educational needs enjoy to the fullest extent the benefit of good-quality nursery education. As all hon. Members know, the voucher scheme creates for the first time the possibility for all four-year-olds to benefit from three terms of good-quality education. I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that it also holds out the possibility of earlier identification of any learning difficulties.
I am sure that Opposition Members who were present during our discussions in Committee would agree that we had a helpful debate on the interaction of nursery vouchers and provision for children with special educational needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for his contribution to that debate. There were some genuinely felt concerns about the impact of vouchers on the provision for young children with special educational needs. We were able to demonstrate that many of those concerns were misplaced. I hope that my speech today will underline the fact that those concerns were groundless.
5.45 pm
One of the principal concerns involved funding. The funding mechanism for the voucher scheme takes from local education authorities' budgets just the voucher value of £1,100 for a full year in respect of four-year-old children who already have a maintained place. Where a place costs more—as it is commonly accepted that it will in the case of many children with SEN statements—the additional resources remain within the LEA; when put


together with the voucher value, no resources are lost. None of the funding for three-year-olds is affected by the voucher scheme—nor does it affect existing duties on LEAs in respect of those children.
We also made it clear that we shall be looking carefully at SENs during the first phase of the nursery voucher scheme's implementation. I thought that it would be helpful if I briefly reminded hon. Members of the commitments that have already been made in respect of children with SENs as a result of the legislation.
First, we have made a firm commitment to consult interested parties during phase 1 about making it a requirement for all providers to have regard to the SEN code of practice. That provides excellent guidance on identifying, assessing and providing for children with degrees of SEN. As I made clear in Committee, the code is a distillation of existing good practice in the maintained sector. We all agree that all employers should have regard to the principles of the code, but making it a requirement of grant to have regard to the code before consulting the voluntary and private sectors—and, of course, SEN interest groups and LEAs—would be inappropriate. I stress, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is not a question of whether we should require all providers to have regard for the code, but a question of how. Let us use the opportunities that phase 1 offers to consider how best to embrace the essentials of the code and apply them to the non-maintained sector.

Mr. Win Griffiths: If the question is how the code of practice is to be used for four-year-olds, as part of the package, will the Government give serious consideration to the possibility of a qualified teacher being involved wherever provision is made for four-year-olds?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman anticipates some of my later comments, although I am not sure that I shall eventually give him quite so much satisfaction on that issue as I hope that I am currently giving him.
The second aspect involves the publishing of SEN policies. As a requirement of grant, we are requiring all providers to publish their SEN policy so that all parents can make informed choices about the most appropriate pre-school setting for their child. All providers must publish details of their admission policy and what consideration is given to children with SEN, of the facilities available to assist and allow access for children with disabilities, and of staff with knowledge and skills in SENs, and other details to be provided as set out. Hon. Members who have an interest in the matter will be aware of our previous discussions.
Thirdly, I refer to additional resources. I explained in Committee that it is neither necessary nor practical to enhance the value of the voucher for children with SEN statements. In Committee, I judged that this was acknowledged by Opposition Members and by those outside the House who have an interest in SEN. As I have already said, existing local education authority resources and responsibilities will not be affected by the nursery voucher scheme; the value of the voucher will contribute to the cost of making the provision specified in a child's SEN statement.
I welcomed the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), whose reputation on issues relating to education and to SEN is a matter of record,

as he demonstrated again today. He rightly highlighted the variations which in practice must exist between the different policies of LEAs. I hope that he will accept in turn that those differences should—indeed, must—be reduced as a result of the operation of the code of practice. While we are grateful to my right hon. Friend for stirring our imagination and for informing our debate in Committee by his earlier suggestion, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate at this time.
We acknowledged in Committee that we should examine more closely the requirements of a particular group of children who attend institutions in the private and voluntary sectors, who have special educational needs but no statement and who require support and assistance over and above what could be provided for within the pre-school setting. Those children would by definition be at stage 3 of the SEN code of practice. Following further consideration, we have decided to give LEAs a new power—the power under Government amendment No. 35—to supply goods and services to providers outside the maintained sector in respect of children who have special educational needs and who require additional support.
In response to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—who, like me, is an old LEA leader and an old hand in these areas—I must say that the hon. Lady is only partly right. Currently, LEAs have limited powers to pay grants to voluntary providers; they do not specifically have powers to provide goods and services to non-maintained providers in respect of children with SEN, except incidentally—in other words, incidental to other payments. I make that clear because I would not want the hon. Lady to be under any misunderstanding.
Most four-year-olds will be in the maintained sector—where the resources are already available for the purpose of meeting special educational needs—so the number involved is likely to be small. We shall need to consider very carefully the resource implications for LEAs, but it would be logical to assume that because the number will be small, the cost to LEAs of assisting the non-maintained sector will be relatively low. However, the amendment will allow—and we shall ensure—that during the annual round of standard spending assessment discussions, which is the most appropriate forum in which the matter can be discussed, the level of resources for LEAs will also reflect the consequences of what I am saying today and what we are spelling out in the amendment.

Ms Hodge: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire: I will finish one more sentence before giving way to the hon. Lady. I will then refer to other aspects. I submit that new clause 2, which set out to do the sort of thing that Government amendment No. 35 is doing, would be unnecessary.

Ms Hodge: Why has the Minister not considered providing a special grant—a specific grant—for this purpose as a way of ensuring that the money goes directly to the children concerned? I refer to the experience of refugees, for example, who are in concentrated and specific areas of the country. When provision is made through the standard spending assessment discussions, the money simply does not get to go to the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady, in part, gave the answer in her question. Logically, this need would not be concentrated in a particular part of the country—unlike refugees—but would tend to be much more of a general requirement, and it makes sense for that to be part of general funding. The hon. Lady must not take me down the general line of specific grants or we shall be here for a long time. She would have to go some way to persuade me, at this stage, that there should be specific grants. These matters can and will be raised by LEAs in the ordinary way during our discussions.
I am outlining the things that are already happening. It is important that I do so because people will read the transcript of the proceedings, particularly those with SEN interests, and I wish them to be reassured.
I was grateful to Opposition Members who pointed out in Committee that under existing legislation LEAs did not have a power of access to Children and Young Persons Act 1988 registered providers and non-approved independent schools for the purposes of monitoring the provision specified in a child's SEN statement. We are proposing to rectify that by making it a requirement of grant for providers in the non-approved independent, private and voluntary sectors to allow LEAs access to their premises for the purpose of monitoring SEN provision specified in a statement.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will be pleased to hear that on the specific question of portage, I have decided to allow, as a trial during phase 1, vouchers to be exchanged for portage offered by National Portage Association approved schemes. Portage is about education, not about child care. Portage home visitors and management teams are highly trained in early years work and there is already an emphasis on sharing information with parents. These schemes can be inspected both as schemes and in terms of how they are implemented. The local authority will be the registered provider and therefore the recipient of the grant. For parents in phase 1 areas, the inclusion of portage will give them additional choice.
I hope that in this respect hon. Members will be assured of the Government's commitment towards children with special educational needs and that objective observers will note that these flow naturally from our discussions. I have already paid tribute to the part that Members on the Opposition Benches have played in that.
With regard to Opposition amendment No. 7 and the question of qualified teacher status, I share the concerns of Labour Members that all children must receive a good-quality nursery education. However, I do not share their belief that this will be achieved only if all voucher-redeeming institutions are led by staff with qualified teacher status. Indeed, Labour Members have said that they want to see the private and voluntary sectors play an important part in the expansion of good-quality nursery places. Insisting on qualified teacher status would exclude the majority of these providers who in many cases, as the Audit Commission has made clear, are providing good-quality pre-school education.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire: I am keen to make progress and I have given way a lot during the debate, and I also did so in

Committee, as hon. Members will acknowledge. We value qualified teacher status—of course we do; it is a particularly important and valuable qualification for those working with pre-school children—but it is not the only qualification: there are a number of qualifications that I have set out elsewhere, and do not propose to repeat now, including national vocational qualifications levels 2 and 3 in child care and education, and the new range of BAs in education and child care. Each of these qualifications offers a slightly different, yet relevant, range of learning, experience and competence for working with children under five.
I submit that this is the key. In this area, the competence and quality of staff are more important that their specific qualifications. It is important that all four-year-olds get good-quality nursery education in exchange for their vouchers. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales covered the question of inspections. I am sure that they and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority learning outcomes will together ensure good-quality provision for all. In conclusion, I recommend that hon. Members reject new clause 2 and amendment No. 7, but that they accept amendment No. 35.

Mr. Kilfoyle: When the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) made his contribution to the debate, I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment was nodding in agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's request. He seemed to be asking for a guarantee of adequate resourcing in the areas in which we all acknowledge that he has a particular interest. When the Minister eventually responded, it sounded as if he was going to offer yet another of the Prime Minister's infamous charters in terms of the information that would be made available. We welcome any information that could be made available in relation to special educational needs policies.
We then got to the crux of the issue, which is the Government amendment. In technical terms, the amendment provides the opportunity for local authorities to exercise new powers in terms of goods and services, but it does not—and the Minister also failed to do so—satisfy the Labour party in terms of new resources.
It is one thing to talk about the standard spending assessment as a distribution mechanism and quite another to suggest, in a fudged way, that it provides new resources—which, by the Minister's admission, will be rather small but might be crucial in some areas—to cater for special educational needs. Most Labour authorities spend far more on educational provision than standard spending assessments provide, so Government amendment No. 35 will only massage the figures—it will not provide any extra resources.
If the Minister were to intervene to say that the Government would guarantee extra resources when they are required for that aspect of special educational need, we would welcome Government amendment No. 35. As things stand, however, it offers only a shift in notional figures and means nothing in terms of extra grant. Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Mr. Robin Squire: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister declines to intervene, so we have no option but to ask the House to vote for the Opposition's new clause 2.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 278.

Division No. 81]
[6.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Ainger, Nick
Faulds, Andrew


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foster, Don (Bath)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Galbraith, Sam


Ashton, Joe
Galloway, George


Austin-Walker, John
Gapes, Mike


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Gerrard, Neil


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Godman, Dr Norman A


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Berry, Roger
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blunkett, David
Gunnell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hanson, David


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Burden, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Heppell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Church, Judith
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Corston, Jean
Janner, Greville


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cummings, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dafis, Cynog
Jowell, Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dowd, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum





McFall, John
Rendel, David


McKelvey, William
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


McMaster, Gordon
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


MacShane, Denis
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Maddock, Diana
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mandelson, Peter
Short, Clare


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michael, Alun
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Timms, Stephen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Touhig, Don


Morley, Elliot
Trickett, Jon


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Trimble, David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Tyler, Paul


Mudie, George
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wareing, Robert N


Olner, Bill
Watson, Mike


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Pearson, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pickthall, Colin
Wilson, Brian


Pike, Peter L
Wise, Audrey


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Eric Clarke and.


Reid, Dr John
Ms Ann Coffey.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Arbuthnot, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Body, Sir Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Booth, Hartley
Carttiss, Michael






Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Congdon, David
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Pawsey, James





Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sykes, John


Pickles, Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robathan, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Tom
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Roger Knapman


Sweeney, Walter

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

DECISION IN RELATION TO VOUCHERS

'—(1) Where a local education authority notifies the Secretary of State within such a period as he may specify in relation to a financial year, the provisions of sections 1 to 5 and of schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall not apply in respect of any person providing nursery education within the area of that authority in respect of that year.

(2) No authority may notify the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above unless—

(a) it has consulted parents, such voluntary organisations as appear to it to be concerned, head teachers and teachers and providers of nursery education within its area;
(b) having regard to the results of such consultation it has resolved that the making of grants in respect of children within its area is likely to damage the overall amount and quality of nursery education within that area; and
(c) it has agreed an alternative scheme for the development or improvement of nursery education in its area which it considers will more effectively maintain and enhance the overall amount and quality of such education within its area; and
(d) it has approved a resolution which gives effect to the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) above, and which is in accordance with subsection (3) below.

(3) No authority may agree a resolution of the type referred to in subsection (2)(d) above unless three quarters of the members of the authority voting in full council have approved it.'.—[Ms Estelle Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Local authorities already providing nursery education—
'Nothing in this Act shall enable the Secretary of State to do anything (whether by reducing any funding however provided or otherwise) which would result, or would be likely to result, in a reduction in the proportion of children receiving nursery education in the area of any local education authority by comparison with the proportion of children receiving such education in that area at the time at which this Act enters into force.'.
Amendment No. 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after '(1)' insert
'Subject to subsection (1B) below'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to allow the Secretary of State to make arrangements which have the effect of reducing the resources available, whether in grants or otherwise, to any local authority in the first or any subsequent financial years of the operation of those arrangements.'.
Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) Where the Secretary of State proposes to exercise for the first time his power under subsection (1) above, he shall lay before Parliament a report detailing the amount of nursery education available in the area of each local education authority and the likely demand for places in nursery education once such arrangements are made.
(1B) The Secretary of State shall in each subsequent year to the year in which he lays the report under subsection (1A) above, lay before Parliament further reports outlining the effect of arrangements made under subsection (1) on the number of children for whom nursery education is provided in the area of each local education authority.'.
Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an evaluation of the operation in any local education authority area of any arrangements under which grants are made otherwise than under this Act in respect of nursery education in the financial year 1996–97.
(1B) No arrangements may be made under subsection (1) above which have effect in any financial year commencing on or after 1st April 1997 before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the kind referred to in subsection (1 A) above'.

Ms Morris: The purpose of new clause 3 and the other new clause and amendments in this group is to allow local authorities to opt out of the voucher scheme in certain prescribed circumstances. Before such an opt-out would be allowed, a local authority would have to consult widely with parents, teachers, head teachers and early years education providers and agree an alternative scheme for the development or improvement of nursery education in its area. Further, the new clause would require three quarters of the elected authority members, voting in full council, to approve a resolution. In most cases, that resolution would effectively require a cross-party consensus.
A similar new clause was moved in Committee. This one, however, differs in a number of respects. In particular, it requires that the
overall amount and quality of nursery education
will be likely to be damaged without an opt-out.
Let us be clear about it: this option is likely to be used only by local authorities that are currently high providers of nursery education. Indeed, in Committee, talk about the option became commonly known as "the Solihull amendment". It is sad but true that, despite the best efforts of myself and other Opposition Members, and after weeks of discussions, the Government still fail to understand—or fail to admit that they understand—that this legislation will damage high providers. There is no doubt that the Solihulls, Dudleys and Calderdales, where provision is good, will be losers under this legislation.

Dr. Hampson: The whole problem with what the hon. Lady has said is contained in paragraph (c), which states:
which it considers will more effectively maintain and enhance
provision, because "it" is the council. The chief inspector of schools has recently said that 40 per cent. of council or local authority primary schools are under-performing. Why should it be at the discretion of "it", the council—which is palpably failing this country—to determine what it thinks is the best form of nursery provision? Why cannot we allow parents and the people to determine what choices they want? If a council such as Solihull is offering a good option, people will choose it.

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman should read the new clause, because it makes it quite clear that an opt-out would not be allowed unless the widest consultation had taken place with the people to whom he has referred—parents, teachers, head teachers and those in the wider community. The notion that central Government—this Government, of all Governments—can deal with under-achievement when local authorities, which have been working against massive opposition from the Government, have not been able to do so, is absolutely unbelievable. The idea that the Government have the answer does not ring true. This opt-out would be allowed only after consultation, and it really is a case of trusting local people.
Solihull has been able to provide good-quality pre-school education for 100 per cent. of its four-year-olds and more than 70 per cent. of its three year-olds mainly because it has prioritised such provision, but also because it has been able to estimate its income, project its numbers for the next and subsequent years, and therefore use its staffing and buildings in an economical way.
The Bill pretends to be about extending nursery education provision, but let us make no mistake about it: not to agree these amendments will work against the claimed purposes of the proposals.
There is another, equally important reason for supporting the amendments: to decentralise decision making to the local level. The decision—in consultation with users and other people in communities—on how a local authority should provide nursery places can and should be taken locally.
The Bill represents a massive centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. If it is passed, the Secretary of State will determine one set of arrangements


for the distribution, value and redemption of nursery vouchers, and she will determine which provision can be funded and which cannot.
Let us be clear that it has taken 17 years for the Conservative Government even to get round to doing anything about nursery education—they have certainly had a long time to think about it. The idea that, after 17 years, they have come up with the one and only way of organising nursery education is preposterous. While the Government have done nothing for 17 years to advance nursery education, many local authorities, both Labour-controlled and Conservative-controlled, have got on and provided it in a variety of ways.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: That is exactly what has happened in Calderdale, where, for 20 years, all the parties have worked together, so that 70 per cent. of three and four-year-olds now receive good-quality nursery education. What the Government propose is authoritarian, bureaucratic and centralising.

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Calderdale, the teachers, the local authority, parents and everyone else work in partnership. They should be congratulated on devising a system that works for them. I know that my hon. Friend will have been dismayed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who decried the high standards that have been achieved in Calderdale, Solihull and elsewhere.
The Labour party believes that those authorities that have developed their own way of providing nursery education, with no help from the Government in the past 17 years, should be allowed to get on with it. They have proved that it works, so let them carry on. Why disrupt something when it is already working well? Why force a local community down one road when it clearly prefers another? Why switch money from nursery places to paperchases, as the nursery voucher system does?
The Government talk long and hard about decentralising power. Last night, we heard Ministers argue that even building regulations should be left to local decision. They claim that they want to give power and influence to parents and autonomy to schools. If so, the Government should welcome the new clause and the associated amendments.
The new clause is not a wrecking amendment. It will demand the highest standards of local authorities, and require them to produce a plan to show how they will develop and maintain high-quality nursery education in conjunction with the voluntary and private sectors. At long last, the provision of high-quality nursery education is a shared aim of hon. Members. It is nonsense to suppose that there is only one way in which to make that wish a reality.

Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Lady not realise that she has just let the cat out of the bag with that sentence? Her own words condemn her. At a time when we are moving away from the idea that LEAs are the only acceptable means of providing education, and moving towards the provision of more and more grant-maintained schools, the hon. Lady would like us to take a massive step backwards. Why do we need to do that?

Ms Morris: The hon. Member is respected on both sides of the House for his efforts in education, but he should listen

carefully and read the new clauses and amendments. I said clearly that local authorities would be expected to develop a plan and work in conjunction with the voluntary and private sectors to ensure that high-quality nursery education was provided and its standard maintained. There never has been any suggestion—on Second Reading, in Committee, or even now, on Report—that the future for nursery education lies only in local authority provision. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) would like us to return to those dark ages.
The new clause is designed to put on the agenda our desire for top-quality nursery education. It also acknowledges the wealth of experience and skill of local authorities, which have done the job and provided nursery education despite the Government. Under the new clause, those authorities would be allowed to make a local decision to opt out of the voucher scheme and, according to their discretion, produce a plan to do the job as they see fit.

Sir Donald Thompson: I am from Calderdale. In 1977, I was chairman of the education committee that devised the system that has just received such praise from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). I do not think that the Bill will do anything to damage that system. In fact, I am sure that it will enhance it. The local authority can still devise a plan to work with the private sector, as the hon. Lady has suggested. Calderdale has not, however, yet devised a plan to work with the grant-maintained sector.
Many working women want more flexible nursery provision than can be provided by the maintained sector. If the hon. Lady thinks that the Bill could have been framed differently, she and her party should have encouraged representatives of Calderdale to sit next to the Secretary of State and advise her. In fact, her party drove Calderdale away from consultation. The authority should have been party to the voluntary consultation.
In an effort to be brief, I put the following questions to the Minister. Can he allay the fears of my constituents about the loss of income? As far as I can see, the Bill will provide for increased income—one more child means 1,100 quid in the kitty. Can he allay their fears about the ability to plan forward? Given that the current system operated by Calderdale is so well run and maintained, I cannot see why such fears have been expressed. Can he allay their fears about the registration system being sufficiently flexible? People will then know their rights when they come to register and take their chits to the headmaster promptly. Will my hon. Friend meet some of my constituents to discuss the finer points of the scheme?

Mrs. Mahon: Before I state my specific reasons for supporting new clause 3, it is worth while commenting on the extraordinary behaviour of the Secretary of State in the media today. She said that those who are against nursery vouchers were "pathetic". I do not think that the people of Halifax, the local education authority or people up and down the country deserve that insult. We are expected to believe that the Secretary of State is the moderate, sensible voice in what is increasingly becoming an authoritarian party. She told millions of listeners today, however, that she favoured the nursery voucher system because it gave parents "choice"—something which she accused Opposition parties of wanting to deny to them.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

Parliamentary Debates

Volume 274

Session 1995–96

ISBN 0 10 681274 2

CORRIGENDUM TO THE INDEX

A number of errors were made in the production of the index to this volume. Please make the following changes:


Add:



Evans, Mr Roger
Questions



Social fund, Finance 19w


Gill, Mr Christopher
Questions



Royal yacht 444w


Jamieson, Mr David
Debates etc.



Finance Bill, Rep 1117–8


Prentice, Mr Gordon
Questions



Health authorities, Public appointments 378w


Royal yacht
444w


Soames, Mr Nicholas
Questions



Royal yacht 444w


Delete:



Burt, Mr Alistair
Questions



Social fund, Finance 19w


Redmond, Mr Martin
Questions



Health authorities, Public appointments 377–8w

Change

Cancer

Diagnosis 662w

Consent to medical treatment 662w

Cousins, Mr Jim, Questions

Consent to medical treatment 662w

Diagnosis 662w

Diagnosis

662w

Cancer 662w

Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Questions

Parliamentary questions, Home Office 2w

Home Office

Parliamentary questions 2w

Horam, Mr John Questions

Consent to medical treatment 662w

Diagnosis 662w

Howard, Mr Michael Questions

Parliamentary questions, Home Office 2w

Maclean, Mr David Questions

Parish constables, Manpower 708–9w

Nicholson, Mr David Questions

Parish constables, Manpower 708–9w

Parish constables Manpower 708–9w

Parliamentary questions Home Office 2w

NOVEMBER: THE STATIONERY OFFICE

To

Cancer

Diagnosis 658–9w

Consent to medical treatment 659w

Cousins, Mr Jim, Questions

Consent to medical treatment 659w

Diagnosis 658–9w

Diagnosis

659w

Cancer 558–9w

Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Questions

Parliamentary questions, Home Office 205w

Home Office

Parliamentary questions 205w

Horam, Mr John Questions

Consent to medical treatment 659w

Diagnosis 658–9w

Howard, Mr Michael Questions

Parliamentary questions, Home Office 205w

Maclean, Mr David Questions

Parish constables, Manpower 502w

Nicholson, Mr David Questions

Parish constables, Manpower 502w

Parish constables Manpower 708–9w

Parliamentary questions Home Office 205w

I am receiving dozens of petitions, almost daily, from people of Halifax and Calder Valley—the very constituents of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). They state clearly in their petitions that they want to exercise choice. One such petition states:
We, the undersigned parents, feel that the Government's proposed Nursery Voucher Scheme for 4 year olds is a highly bureaucratic one and will be detrimental to the quality of existing education services.
We therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education to exempt Calderdale from the Nursery Voucher System altogether, as Calderdale is already a high provider of good quality Nursery and Reception education. We believe it would be more appropriate to concentrate on providing adequately funded state nursery and reception places for all children.
Those are not my words or the words of any political party. The petition was from a group of parents whose children attend the Shade primary school in the Calder valley, which I am sure is well known to the hon. Member for Calder Valley.
Petitions are coming in from all over Halifax and the Calder valley. Parents are saying loud and clear, "We demand the right to choose what is best for our children." We should challenge the Minister to give them that choice by supporting new clause 3. I am slightly disappointed that it seems that the hon. Member for Calder Valley will not be joining us in the Lobby tonight. The Secretary of State and the Minister can hide behind warm words for only so long. The people of Britain are telling them loud and clear what they want.
6.30 pm
In Calderdale, all children are entitled to a year of full-time schooling in the school year in which they have their fifth birthday. A local organisation, Schools Against Vouchers in Education—SAVE—has produced an excellent fact sheet, which is being posted through every door. I shall quote it at some length, as I want to put the facts on record. It states:
Education is provided free of charge in Primary School Reception Classes. Calderdale also provides nursery education for 70 per cent. of three and four year olds"—
that is a very high figure—
and is working to expand this so that nursery schooling is available for all children in the school year in which they are four.
SAVE is not a political organisation. Its supporters come from all political parties and vote across the spectrum. It continues:
This is now under threat from the Government's new voucher system.
That is clear from the fact sheet. It then explains some of the costs in Calderdale:
The Voucher is called a Nursery Voucher. This is misleading since it applies to all education for four and five year olds and so covers both Nursery and Reception class."—
The voucher will be worth £1,100. This is not enough for a full time place. It costs £2,256 per child"—

Mr. Pawsey: Top-up.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman says, "Top-up." I wish that he would come and see some of the schools in my constituency, where there is all-party support for extra funding.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon: No. Anyone who makes that kind of sedentary intervention clearly does not have the good of children at heart. It was a ridiculous intervention.
The document continues:
It costs £2,256 per year for a child in Nursery Class and £1,866 per year for a child in Reception Class.
For most children in Calderdale the £1,100 voucher is not new money.
As SAVE makes clear:
To fund the scheme the Government will take £3 million from Calderdale. This is three quarters of the money the council spends on schooling for the under fives. This could mean fewer teachers, larger classes and cuts in nursery and reception places.
Local people are telling the Government that they do not want the new scheme. They are happy with what the council is doing, and they know that the council is working very hard to improve nursery provision from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent., as is available in Solihull.
Head teachers, teachers, governors and councillors of all political parties are campaigning to stop vouchers being introduced in Calderdale. Similar campaigns are being set up by schools all over the country. We believe that Calderdale and other local authorities should be allowed to opt out if they wish to continue providing an excellent service.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon: I am sorry, but time is short, and I want to conclude. I am making the case for Calderdale on behalf of the people who are launching the SAVE campaign. The facts are all there. It has taken 20 years, using ratepayers' money and getting all-party agreement, to provide a high standard of nursery education. I challenge the Minister to listen and learn, and the Government can do that by accepting new clause 3.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I hope to astound you by my brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for having been called to speak. I come rather late to the debate on the Bill, and I apologise to the House for that. On the other hand, I have taken an interest in education for almost as long as I have been adult and sentient, and that interest has not yet departed from me.
One of my first ever speeches in the House, when my party was in opposition, was sceptical, if not critical, of a move towards vouchers in state education. That was in 1976. In one sense, I have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, but in another I have clung to a sceptical view on the matter.
As I understand it, new clause 3 concerns how we carry forward the expansion of nursery education in Britain. There are currently four pilot projects—three in London and one in Norfolk. My first thought is that, if they are genuine pilot projects, it would be greatly preferable if we could take a bit longer to build up the empirical evidence to find out whether or not it is a good idea. I am not in favour of rushing such matters, and I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister why he thinks it is so necessary and expedient to go ahead so fast from the pilot phase to the full-blown phase.
I remember the arguments 20 years ago—nothing has changed fundamentally—that vouchers are supposed to be an empowering measure to give parents greater choice and flexibility to do well by their children. However, it is important that the House should be told tonight—even if it has been told in Committee, whose debates I have not had


the chance to follow as closely as I should—how much extra money will flow from the new arrangements, allowing for any clawback, and how many additional places will be created for the nursery education of our children.

Mr. Robin Squire: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but the figures have been made public. In the first year, we are providing £165 million of new money in phase 1, and £390 million is being provided over the three years. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is not possible to predict exactly how many additional places there will be, but more will be provided in response to the money.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That makes me feel considerably better than I did a few moments ago. Those substantial sums could do a power of good for the children concerned. It is important that we should know that.
I should report to the House that I visit all the schools in my constituency as frequently as I can. On a recent visit that I made to Bandon Hill primary school in Wallington, the head teacher, the staff, the classroom assistants and all the parents who introduced themselves to me were almost unanimous in their view. They were worried and sceptical about the implications of the scheme, although it is possible that they did not have the full facts. They urged me to make that point to the House, and that is exactly what I am doing this evening.
I had the chance to speed-read new clause 3, and I paid attention to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said in her brief opening speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said in an intervention, one of its weaknesses is that many of the paragraphs in subsection (2) of the new clause make the local education authority effectively judge and jury in its own cause.
Although there is a provision for consultation, to which the hon. Lady referred, I know from my own local authority—alas, under Liberal control—that local authorities' idea of consultation is to put out some expensive documents and go through the motions of listening, but the real parental influence is very small, so it usually turns out to be an expensive sham. If the hon. Lady is resting on that element of her argument, I think it is a fragile foundation.
My scepticism, as I say, goes back 20 years. I am glad to hear from the Minister that genuine extra money will be forthcoming. I hope that it will create useful new nursery places. If it satisfies that criterion, I shall reluctantly support him in the Lobby—but it will need to do that. I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on developments.

Mr. Iain Mills: I tabled new clause 5, whose objective is similar to that of new clause 3. The Minister will not therefore be surprised to learn that, for reasons that I shall outline briefly, I shall be joining those voting for new clause 3.
I am distraught at the idea that a Conservative Government are not listening to parents. I have explained to the Secretary of State and to the Minister that, in my constituency, almost every parent of a nursery school

child has contacted me to tell me that they are highly satisfied with Solihull's current provision of nursery education. Whatever colleagues may say about local authorities, providing £l,800-worth of valuable education is a lot better than introducing a national voucher worth £1,100. The local education authority provides that service voluntarily; it is already strapped for cash by the Government under its standard spending assessment calculation. The money comes from council tax payers, not from the Government. Now, this Government, whom I loyally support, are saying that they intend to impose a system that is bureaucratic, expensive and open to fraud. The parents in my constituency do not want it, and I consider it nothing short of madness.
By all means introduce vouchers for LEAs that are not providing enough nursery education, but it is quite wrong to force the scheme on us and on other LEAs that are doing a fine job. There has not been enough consultation. According to the press, the pilot schemes have run into a great many problems. Forcing through the new scheme by April 1997 will amount to another Dangerous Dogs Act. This rush for nursery vouchers is wholly misguided.
What does the Minister think that I should say to parents? I intend to vote against a scheme that they do not want. Is it a fair, just or democratic solution? Is it Conservative? The Minister cannot talk about parental choice at the same time as countenancing the forced introduction of this scheme for local authorities such as the one in Solihull. The authority is not against private provision. Perhaps the private sector will eventually provide enough high-quality places—but certainly not by April 1997.
Perhaps I should not get so excited, but I am worked up on behalf of the thousands of parents who have contacted me about this issue. [Interruption.] The Minister is talking to his private parliamentary secretary, but I hope that he will listen to the rest of my short speech. I am grateful to him for answering my parliamentary questions and letters. He is a charming Minister, but how can he compare £l,800-worth of provision with £1,100?

Mr. Robin Squire: I do not need to. Parents will.

Mr. Mills: I must point out that the provision already exists in Solihull. The Minister is going to charge parents more money for what they already have.

Mr. Squire: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mills: Well, I do not see how the extra £700 will be created.

Mr. Riddick: The money will remain in the hands of local authorities, which will then be able to top up provision for those parents.

Mr. Mills: That is fine in theory. The briefing note says that the SSA for the under-fives from which the deduction is made
was allocated on a need-to-spend basis and is unsuited for a flat £1,100 deduction.
Solihull's achievements in teaching reading, writing and arithmetic to three-and-a-half-year-olds have been brilliant, but the under-fours cost 100 per cent. more than other groups, so the money cannot later be recouped.
I have been asked to leave time for the Minister to sum up, and I am sure that colleagues would like to add their contributions—

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Mills: I shall give way only because my hon. Friend is indeed a long-standing friend.

Mr. Pawsey: I have some correspondence from the Department for Education and Employment dated 11 March, in which it says:
There is absolutely no reason why provision for three year olds should be damaged—no resources have been deducted from LEAs' SSA in respect of provision for three year olds.
I suspect that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.

Mr. Mills: I always value my hon. Friend's advice and find his company extremely pleasant. He will forgive me if I differ on this occasion. Every year, I have been told by Education and Environment Ministers that Solihull's SSA will improve, and every year it has got worse. That is part of the problem: the SSAs do not contribute enough money. I wonder whether my good and hon. Friend understands that Solihull is such a good education authority that more than 1,000 pupils from Birmingham, Coventry and Warwickshire are on its books.
I understand that a small amount of new money—about £20 million—is to be spent on administration.

Mr. Squire: Inspection.

Mr. Mills: If I carry on much longer I shall be shot at dawn—I do not know whether the Minister would like that. Can he give me one good reason why our well-loved, efficient, nationally reputed scheme, which is supported by all parents, should be abandoned in favour of the new one? Why cannot Solihull opt out?

Mr. Alan Keen: I cannot beat that. I wish that more Conservative Members were willing to speak out on behalf of the parents who have contacted them, just as they have contacted me in my constituency.
The benefits of nursery education are well known. I had thought that they were accepted on both sides of the House, but I began to doubt that while serving on the Standing Committee throughout February. Research in the United States has shown that the money spent is returned four times over in the lifetime of the recipients of nursery education, but that effect will not be achieved in a watered-down system. That seems to be what the Government are intent on perpetrating on local authorities that already provide high-quality, proper education. I support new clause 3 to defend that high quality, which has been built up carefully over many years and is an investment in the future of the nation.
Both matters covered by the Bill—nursery education and grant-maintained schools—show the Government's persistent short-termism. Manufacturing industry, the health service and now children's education are suffering under the short-term policies of the Government.
We all want to give parents choice, but not to the detriment of the education of our children. If the Bill were to provide high-quality nursery education for all children, it would have everybody's full support. If it were to provide

high-quality education and a chance for parents to choose additional playgroup hours, it would also have everyone's support. We do not want high-quality nursery education replaced by playgroups. Some parents, through necessity, may choose longer hours instead of quality. The Government should finance schemes to assist parents to find suitable child care or playgroups. Aiming finance in that direction would stimulate provision, but it is not acceptable to damage existing high-quality nursery education.
The provision of nursery education varies greatly throughout the country. Where it exists, it is integrated into the statutory education system and is an integral part of the infant school years of children who benefit from the cohesion and continuity that the direct links between nursery education provision and statutory education bring. The Government are suggesting a very different scheme, which can be worth while, but not as a replacement for quality nursery education.
New clause 3 would give parents the chance to make an informed and constructive choice. It would give choice to head teachers and voluntary organisations. For an LEA to opt out of the Government scheme, three quarters of local councillors would have to agree. In most cases, that would require cross-party agreement. In Hounslow, that would not be the case at the moment, but the Tory group leader has already said that he supports the retention of Hounslow's nursery education.
I asked in Committee what commercial company would risk damaging a successful part of its business, as the Government will with the nation's existing nursery education. No answer was forthcoming. Why are the Government persevering with the Bill? None of the answers rings true, so there must be another one. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) have asked the same question. We understand that the Government must be attracted to the idea of sending out vouchers worth £1,100 to parents of four-year-olds. On Second Reading, I said that they might as well stamp "Vote Conservative" on the vouchers. That is the only possible explanation of why the scheme is being hurried through so quickly. I am sad to have to say that in a debate about the education of our children.
Why should a Labour Member of Parliament care about electoral prospects of Conservative Members? I care very much about the parents, and the future of our children, because they are the responsibility of us all. Why are the Government risking the futures of some Conservative Members of Parliament in areas with a high quality of nursery education, as two of them have described tonight? I do not understand. I beg the Government to have another think about the Bill and not to do dreadful damage to existing provision.

Mr. David Sumberg: I shall be brief. In the roll call of honour of the local authorities that provide good nursery education—Calderdale and others have been mentioned—Bury should be included. It provides good nursery and reception class education and I pay tribute to the local authority, which is not of my persuasion, and to the governors, teachers and parents.
I oppose new clause 3 and shall support the Government for two reasons. I believe that it is right in principle to give the freedom of choice that the Bill would provide. I attended a meeting with local head teachers of primary


schools in my constituency recently and argued that case with them. The pilot scheme, too, is right, because whenever the Government have proposed legislation in the past, the cry has always been for pilot schemes.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reassure me on two points, and I make those points conditional. First, can my hon. Friend assure me that the pilot scheme is genuine? I told my head teachers that it was; that lessons will be learnt from it; and that, if errors and inconsistencies are found, changes will be made. I ask my hon. Friend to give me that assurance.
Secondly, in specific terms, I have been told by my hon. Friend and his Department that, when this scheme comes into operation in Bury in 1997, if the same number of children who attended school in 1996 turn up in 1997, there will be no loss of funding—not one single penny—for the local authority of which my constituency is part. Will my hon. Friend assure me that that will be so in 1997 and in the years that lie ahead? Will my hon. Friend assure me—I accept that the arrangements will be subject to the elements of local authority funding—that the scheme will make no difference whatever to the funding arrangements for the people whom I represent? On that assurance—that parents will be no worse off and some may be better off, depending how the scheme works—and on the answer about the pilot element, I will support the Government.

Mr. Robin Squire: It is not surprising that there has been much scaremongering tonight, mainly from Opposition Members, about the alleged effect that the voucher scheme will have on local authority funding. Frankly, I remain at a loss, having had discussions for months now, to understand why Opposition Members appear genuinely to believe that nursery vouchers might damage existing good provision. Let me make it clear—they will not. I shall spend the short time available spelling that out.
If LEAs are offering a good and popular service, parents will continue to choose that service—obviously, reasonably and intelligently—and nothing will change. No school will be forced to take more children. No school will be forced to change its admission arrangements. We are not forcing schools to undertake activities that the best have not already seized with both hands. What we are doing—it lies at the heart of the debate and is no doubt why Opposition Members continue to use scaremongering tactics—is allowing parents to choose in a way that they have never been able to in the past.
New clause 3, moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), would give every local authority the opportunity to exempt itself, for a financial year, from any of the grant arrangements set out in the Bill. The new clause sets out the conditions and circumstances in which an authority can activate that exemption.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), I wish to stress that the new clause would require consultation with parents. That is an improvement on what was suggested in Committee. The new clause would even involve consultation with the private and voluntary sectors, but at heart it is still about putting local authorities back in the driving seat for the

development of local nursery education facilities. All the new clause would require is consultation. There is no mention of any sector apart from the LEA sector playing a decisive role and, of course, there is no mention of a requirement on the local authority to obtain the agreement of those other sectors.
I said over and over, especially in Committee, that we want to put power in the hands of parents and, far from the Bill being a nationalising, centralising measure, it is the greatest decentralisation of all. Let parents decide what is best for their child. Let parents decide whether their child will flourish in the more informal surroundings of pre-school or a more structured environment. We want choice for all parents, not just for those who live in areas whose authorities have chosen not to exempt themselves from the scheme. There is nothing to prevent more local authorities from developing and publishing plans, and I trust that good, forward-looking authorities will do that now. We do not need legislation for that, but we do need legislation to ensure that parents are in the driving seat.
I agree with m y hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who tabled new clause 5, that none of us wants participation in nursery education to decrease. Indeed, as I have spelt out—for instance, in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington—we are providing significant new funds to expand nursery education rather than reducing it. There is already a healthy variety of nursery provision, but I want it to be extended still further. As we have made clear time and again, every parent of a four-year-old will have the power to reinforce the decision on where that child should receive nursery education.
7 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden asked me two specific questions. Let me make it clear that no one is forcing a change in the existing provision if parents do not want it. If parents strongly support local authority provision—my hon. Friend made clear the excellence of Solihull's current provision—they need not oppose the voucher scheme; they can simply take their vouchers to the local authority school of their choice, which will give it the maximum buttressing. Moreover, they can tell their friends about it.
Let me tackle a linked point that was made by both my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). Local education authorities do not need to attract extra pupils to make the voucher funding mechanism cash neutral: they need only continue to fill the same number of places. Indeed, if they attract one more pupil, they will be in pocket. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, as a good Yorkshireman, will appreciate that.
Let me explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that the top-up that was referred to is, in effect, the extra money that still lies with his local authority—£700. At present, the authority spends that money on providing the excellent nursery education that my hon. Friend mentioned, and it will continue to be able to do so. As for the £20 million that my hon. Friend said was spent on administration, it is spent overwhelmingly on inspection, and will ensure that more than 12,000 providers that are not currently inspected will be. I hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome that.
Local authorities will not need to close nursery schools or classes, or change their admission arrangements, as a result of the voucher scheme. Local management of schools will enable voucher income to be passed to schools, so local authorities will not even need to change the way in which they fund those schools. I accept that, at this precise moment, I cannot persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, but I hope that he will think about what I have said. I assure him that parents and schools in his constituency have nothing to fear.
Amendment No. 3 is intended to ensure that local authority resources will not be reduced in total as a result of the voucher scheme. That goes back over ground that we discussed in Committee. In effect, the amendment would give a blanket protection to all LEAs. Although I am sympathetic in principle to the idea of ensuring that local authorities do not lose money, I will not countenance an amendment that would ensure that they retain resources for ever and a day, even when their provision is not good and parents have determined to use alternative providers.
I am at a loss to understand the intentions of amendments Nos. 4 and 11. Nursery education is not compulsory; the Secretary of State cannot prejudge parents' decisions, and would not wish to do so. While there are some 660,000 children aged four in England alone—that figure varies from term to term—I see little point in laying an annual report before Parliament setting out the number of children for whom funded nursery education has been provided.
Amendment No. 12 includes the word "evaluation". My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South and for Carshalton and Wallington rightly drew attention to the importance of learning lessons from phase 1, and I assure them that we shall do so. Only two aspects of the scheme are different—the funding mechanism and the inspection regime. On the funding mechanism, we shall be in an excellent position to draw lessons not just from the first term of the scheme, but from the second term, which will begin in September. That will inform us about the mechanisms under which vouchers are redeemed and issued. I am pleased to say that—contrary to comments by Opposition Members—phase 1 is going very well, and the number of providers is up.
I am sorry to have spoken for so long, but a good deal is contained in the new clauses and amendments that we are discussing. I ask the House to reject them, because they are unnecessary and unreasonably delay the advent of the universal nursery education that I assume is wanted by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Ms Estelle Morris: The Minister has signally failed to advance any argument in favour of forcing local authorities that currently provide top-quality education, and whose communities want them to continue to do so, to adopt the nursery voucher scheme.
Conservative Members have questioned the consultation provision that is inherent in new clause 3. What consultation has taken place about the introduction of the voucher scheme? How many people have queued up to say that that is the best way of providing nursery education? Local authorities did not want to be part of phase 1. Whatever hon. Members' doubts may be about the quality of the consultation for which new clause 3 provides, they cannot doubt that there has been little, if any, meaningful consultation about the voucher scheme.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) that his original instincts were right: there is no new money for new places in the scheme. Any new money will go into the private sector, so that parents of children who are being educated in that sector can receive £1,100 to pay for a place for which they are paying out of their own pockets. It is what is described as a dead-weight cost. There will be no new places; there is no new money; there has been no consultation.
New clause 3 would allow local authorities such as Solihull, Halifax and Bury—as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg)—to go on doing what they have done successfully for the past 17 years, after listening to teachers and parents. The Government have not cared two hoots about nursery education; why, at this late stage—when they have suddenly realised that this is a service worth protecting and working for—should they be able to say to local authorities, "You have been doing this well for a long time, but move over now, because we know how to do it better"? Why should such a central Government diktat be possible? That is what the Minister is saying, however, and that is what he is asking us to vote for.
If the Minister were seriously concerned about the effects of the scheme, he would announce a proper pilot scheme. He would announce a period, after phase 1, during which proper evaluation could take place before phase 2. However, he is asking the House to ignore the proven success of Solihull and other areas, and to replace their arrangements with a scheme that has not even started a pilot phase. There is no argument for that; the Minister has never made such an argument. He has failed to do so again tonight, and I ask the House to divide on new clause 3.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 276.

Division No. 82]
[7.08 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Byers, Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Church, Judith


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Roger
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Blunkett, David
Corston, Jean


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Burden, Richard
Dafis, Cynog






Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Denham, John
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum


Donohoe, Brian H
McFall, John


Dowd, Jim
McKervey, William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
MacShane, Denis


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Maddock, Diana


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mandelson, Peter


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Galbraith, Sam
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Galloway, George
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Gapes, Mike
Martlew, Eric


Garrett, John
Maxton, John


George, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mills, Iain


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moriey, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, Bill


Hodge, Margaret
O'Neill, Martin


Hoey, Kate
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Leuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)





Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wallace, James


Soley, Clive
Walley, Joan


Spearing, Nigel
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Watson, Mike


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Welsh, Andrew


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, Jimmy


Touhig, Don
Wright, Dr Tony


Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Ms Janet Anderson and Mr. John Cummings.


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Couchman, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cran, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Bates, Michael
Durant, Sir Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Elletson, Harold


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Sir Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carttiss, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, Wlliam
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clappison, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, Rt Hon William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy






Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Heald, Oliver
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
PortiIlo, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rathbone, Tim


Horam, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Homchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trimble, David


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel





Watts, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wells, Bowen
Winterton, Nicholas (Mace'f'ld)


Whitney, Ray
Wolfson, Mark


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wlkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Wilshire, David

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

AUDIT

'.—An authority or other person to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section 1 shall be required to keep such proper accounts and audit arrangements as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I moved a similar clause when we discussed this matter in Committee. At that time I said that the matter was relatively simple and that I did not need to delay members of the Committee for long. There is no reason why it should delay the House now. I know that the Minister will have reflected carefully on his words in Committee. The new clause is merely a small addition to the Bill to require that bodies in receipt of grants as a result of the legislation will be required to maintain proper audit arrangements.
When we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister shared my concerns. He said:
I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman's concern which prompted the amendment. We are of course dealing with a large amount of public expenditure and it is right that taxpayers' money should be properly audited and accounted for. That is a principle to which the Government attach the utmost importance, and the voucher scheme is no exception." —[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1996; c. 305.]
I entirely agree with the Minister. He should accept what has been accepted in other legislation that has included references to the need to keep proper audited accounts, and should agree to the inclusion in the Bill of a mere 38 words that will ensure probity in arrangements for the nursery voucher scheme.
No doubt the Minister will say that the new clause is unnecessary and cumbersome and that it adds to bureaucracy, but ensuring probity, especially by the addition of only 38 words, is no great encumbrance. The Minister may also say that it will remove flexibility, but it would do nothing of the sort. It merely states that there must be a requirement that such arrangements be made and it gives the Secretary of State power to determine the nature of those arrangements. I hope that the Minister will accept what the Government have accepted many times and will appreciate the strength of the argument.

Mr. Richards: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Sadly, he lost his way somewhere in the middle, as the Liberal party is prone to do. I agree that it is essential that public money is properly used and properly accounted for. We must be confident that the grants that are paid to providers—public, private and voluntary—will be used to provide good-quality education for our four-year-olds. However, there is no


need for the Bill to specify auditing arrangements. I had thought that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would intervene, but he has sensibly backed off.
Local education authorities and maintained schools are already subject to audit and the requirements that we are imposing on private and voluntary providers will include provisions for accounting and auditing: they are a requirement of the grant. They will include a right for the Department's internal auditors and the National Audit Office to examine the books of any such provider. On those grounds, I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Don Foster: I am not entirely convinced by the Minister. Nevertheless there will be an opportunity in another place to take the matter a stage further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

ARRANGEMENTS FOR MAKING GRANTS

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 6, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to section 7(1A) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 6, after 'may', insert 'by regulations'.
Government amendment No. 27.
Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'(3A) Any arrangements made under section 1(3) above which specify the age of children shall be made by regulations.'.
Government amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
Government amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 7, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
'(1A) The power to make arrangements under section 1(1) above shall be exercised by order and no such order may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 38, in page 2, line 41, at end insert—
'(1A) Any arrangements for the making of grants under section 1(1) above shall, where those arrangements make provision for the amount of grant payable in respect of a child, be exercised by order and no such order may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Government amendments Nos. 30 to 32 and 34.

Ms Morris: The purpose of this rather large group of amendments is to ensure proper annual debate on the grants that are made under the legislation. As we have said, the Bill gives the Secretary of State for Education and Employment many powers. Not only does she have the power to dictate how a local community will make provision for its early years education, but Ministers can make arrangements about grant criteria, voucher values,

the framework within which grants are to be administered and what action should be taken after an assessment of the scheme. All that can be done at the moment without recourse to Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 specifically refer to parliamentary scrutiny of the value of the grant, and that would be done in a way that is similar to the current scrutiny of the amount that is put into the assisted places scheme and the student grants and loans scheme. There is considerable similarity between the arrangements for the assisted places scheme and the nursery vouchers scheme. Both involve significant transfers of revenue from local government to central Government and out again. In addition, the nursery voucher scheme can certainly be seen as a significant change in local government finance.
In the interests of good legislation and democracy, it is not acceptable for crucial aspects of the Bill to be decided and controlled by Ministers and Ministers alone in the Department for Education and Employment without proper scrutiny by the House and the other place. The House has a record of being able to scrutinise legislation. It jealously guards that right and exercises it on the assisted places scheme and the student grants and loans scheme year by year. There is no reason why it should not be able to exercise that right in the context of the amount put into grants as part of the nursery voucher scheme. The amendments will allow proper scrutiny by the House and that is right and proper.

Mr. Robin Squire: The Bill sets out the broad framework and the necessary legal underpinning for the grants. It defines what they can be used for and refers to allowing the use of a child benefit database and defining inspection regimes and so on. As I have said—it may even have been in debate with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris)—the grant arrangement will include a great deal of administrative detail.
It is clearly not sensible to make all these matters the subject of legislation, whether primary or secondary, and I do not presume that the hon. Lady would suggest that. Time-consuming amendments would be needed for the slightest change and that would be absurd. It would also limit the flexibility of grants that would be paid to a range of types of institutions.
Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28 set out the child's age and describe the eligible institutions in the regulations. I shall be brief in speaking to the amendments because I am sure that it will not take much to convince hon. Members that they are eminently reasonable and respond to points that were made to me in Committee. In that context, I note and welcome the fact that Opposition Members agree with the Government to the extent that they have tabled a similar amendment to amendment No. 27.
In Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) tabled an amendment that sought to put the description of children eligible for nursery education grants into regulations rather than arrangements. They graciously agreed to withdraw that amendment following my commitment to table an equivalent Government amendment on Report—amendment No. 27 fulfils that commitment.
7.30 pm
Clause 1 defines nursery education for the purposes of the Bill by specifying the upper age limit of children who can be covered by nursery education grants. It would be neither necessary nor appropriate to include in the Bill a lower age limit or any other description of eligible children. That would greatly restrict flexibility in future, but amendment No. 27 would cause the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make regulations to specify what I might call the lower age limit of children eligible for nursery education grant, although the lower limit need not be a specific age.
As the House is aware, we propose that, initially, the voucher scheme should cover only four-year-olds. The amendment would mean that if, for example, the scheme were extended to cover three-year-olds, fresh regulations would be needed and Parliament would have the opportunity to debate that change, if it so wished.
Amendment No. 28 covers a slightly new area in terms of responding to comments in Committee, but, as hon. Members will recall, I made it clear that I was keeping an open mind on the things that should be in the Bill and the things that should be covered by regulation. The amendment would require the descriptions of providers eligible to receive grant under these arrangements to be specified in regulations. A couple of hours ago, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made passing reference to that. The exception is local education authorities in respect of their schools. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, and "The Next Steps" document also makes it clear, that, to be eligible to receive grant, a provider must be one of the following: a maintained school, a local authority day nursery, a finally registered independent school or an institution registered under the Children Act 1989.
The identity of those eligible to receive grant is an important part of the policy both for parents and for providers. Parents need to know and understand which providers can accept their vouchers, and providers need to know whether they can accept vouchers if the provision that they offer is sufficiently good.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Minister explain just one simple thing? If we have an annual debate on the assisted places scheme, why cannot we have a similar annual debate on the provisions made for nursery vouchers?

Mr. Squire: There are significant differences. The most obvious one is that the assisted places scheme operates on an individual by individual basis, in mat the benefit, as it were, that the parent attracts is related to his or her income. With nursery vouchers, we are talking of a standard amount regardless of circumstance. There are other differences, but nursery vouchers are more akin to grants for education support and training, for instance, which are again a standard sum.
By introducing Government amendment No. 28, we have met the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath and others outside. In the same way as changing the age range of children covered by the vouchers is not an administrative detail, so changing the list of institutions that are eligible to receive grant is not an administrative detail. Both should therefore be set out in regulations. As a result of Government amendment No. 28, that will be so. I think that, on reflection, Opposition Members will agree with that.
Amendment No. 38 puts the amount of grant in regulations. Here we reach the matter that the hon. Member for Yardley referred to. It is essential that grant arrangements should specify the amount, timing, frequency and method of payment of nursery education grants. Providers need that information for planning, but to specify the amount of grant in regulations, and especially in regulations subject to affirmative procedure, would be inappropriate.
The amount of grant payable to any particular provider will depend simply on the number of vouchers that they redeem. The calculation of grant will be a matter of simple arithmetic. There is no need for that to be covered by regulations, just as the amount of grant payable in any particular case is not covered by regulations under section 100 of the Education Act 1944 or GEST regulations.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am still unclear. Will the Minister take this a little further? Surely we do not deal with the individual circumstances of a recipient when the House debates the assisted places scheme or, obviously, the voucher scheme, given that there is a flat voucher fee. In principle, therefore, what is the difference between the two? We are not dealing with individual amounts, which necessitate account being taken of people's circumstances.

Mr. Squire: I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman or the House. I was not suggesting that we debate individual circumstances in assisted places scheme debates. I was seeking to show that the comparison that the hon. Gentleman drew relied on assuming that there was a strong similarity between that scheme and the voucher scheme. There are several differences, one of which I highlighted. Another is that a voucher does not become legal tender until it is accepted by a provider and so it is a different beast from the sum granted in the assisted places scheme, but the hon. Gentleman and I are able to have different opinions on this and the world will, I hope, continue to revolve.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The implication of what the Minister has said is that, somehow, the recipient of assisted places scheme financing receives it, but that is not legal tender either. Presumably, parents receive a letter saying that they are entitled to a certain amount of education, the rates for which are set out annually when we debate the cost of the assisted places scheme. How is that different from the voucher? With an assisted places scheme, we are not dealing with tender any more than we are with a voucher scheme.

Mr. Squire: I sought to point out that the difference was that, in the voucher scheme, we are invariably talking about a fixed sum that, as I conceded and as all hon. Members recognise, becomes money when a provider agrees to make a place available. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the assisted places scheme sets out the scale of remission of fees that parents will receive according to their income. That makes it rather a different kettle of fish. It does not mean that one could not envisage circumstances in which voucher grants would be comparable with those on the assisted places scheme, but it is not an immediate, natural link. Having considered it, I could not be convinced that the hon. Gentleman's example made sense in the way that the two examples that I have given—one conceded in Committee and one in the House today—made sense.
They represent a significant departure. If it wanted to, the House could reasonably expect to be able to debate them under the usual provision.
As all Committee members are aware, all the grant arrangements will be set out and published. As I have said, the key aspects will be in regulations. The usual arrangements for accounting to Parliament for public expenditure will continue to apply.
Government amendment No. 30 deals with powers to make transitional arrangements. It is a technical amendment. The Government think it wise to include the usual provision for power to make transitional arrangements in regulations under the Bill. Frankly, the circumstances in which they might be needed would be relatively rare.
Government amendments Nos. 29, 31, 32 and 34 are drafting amendments that simplify the references in the Bill to regulations. The Secretary of State will of course lay all such regulations before the House in accordance with normal parliamentary procedure.
The Government accept the case for including some aspects of the grant arrangements in regulations and have demonstrated that by tabling amendments that will provide for both the description of children who can be covered by the grant and the list of providers who can receive grant to be set out in regulations. I have not been convinced that the amount of the grant, still less the grant arrangements in their entirety, should be set out in regulations. If the matter is pressed to a Division, I urge hon. Members to reject amendments Nos. 5, 26, 9, 2, 6 and 38.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister deserves to be congratulated. As those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware—and it is important that the House is also aware—the Minister has responded to a request in Committee that at least a large amount of information about the scheme be made available to the House annually. I want to place on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his positive response to our request.
In a letter to me within the last couple of days, the Minister said that he had been giving thought to what information should be made available and put in the departmental report. He acknowledges that much of it will be statistical or historical, but says that it will be none the worse for that. He said:

"I have in mind the following broad categories:
Value of the voucher (including any regional variations and areas covered by different value vouchers)
Number of Vouchers issued
Number of Vouchers redeemed
Total Resources made available through vouchers
Number and type of validated institutions
Number of inspections carried out of each type of institutions under new legislative provisions
Number of institutions from whom validation withdrawn
Sums of money received into consolidated fund, and from what source."
That is a wide range of areas to be covered by the report, so I am grateful for the Minister's response.
Of course, all that draws to the attention of the House the very large number of issues that will be put into effect by the Bill. It also draws attention to the very wide powers that will be given to the Secretary of State under the Bill

and the arrangements to make regulations on these and many other issues. It is because the Bill gives so much power to the Secretary of State, over a wide range of issues that are not detailed in the Bill, that considerable disquiet is felt in many quarters about what is happening. That is why there have been various attempts, through the amendments, to provide an opportunity for hon. Members regularly to be able to contribute to the thinking about any changes, to debate them and to vote on them.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said that, under amendment No. 5, the regulations would be debated under the affirmative resolution procedure. She believed that that was a perfectly reasonable suggestion. She drew a number of significant parallels—although they were rejected by the Minister—between the Bill and the assisted places scheme. Hon. Members will be well aware that, for example, section 17(6) of the Education Act 1980, which set up the assisted places scheme, requires all arrangements to be made by regulations. Section 35(2) requires regulations to be made by the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament.
The Minister said that there was not enough similarity between the assisted places scheme and the Bill to go down that route. He protests too much in attempting to show that there are huge differences between the two. After all, the assisted places scheme began by taking money away from local education authorities. That is exactly what is happening with the nursery voucher scheme—money is being taken away from LEA budgets to operate the scheme. As the hon. Member for Yardley said, the sums of money involved in the voucher scheme are significantly greater than the sums involved in the assisted places scheme.
7.45 pm
The Minister is not convinced that the similarities are great enough to use the same procedures. Will he therefore look carefully at amendment No. 26, which adopts a slightly different way to bring the regulations before the House on a regular basis, but using the negative resolution procedure? That would require hon. Members who opposed a particular part of the resolution to pray against it in the usual manner. It would mean that Members of Parliament, who do not have a great deal of spare time, would pray only against matters about which they felt very strongly. There would be no unnecessary time wasting, but hon. Members would have an opportunity regularly to debate issues about which they felt strongly.

Mr. Robin Squire: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall happily give way to the Minister. I was about to say that it would be nice if he intervened to tell us whether he thinks that that way of doing things would accord with the democratic procedures of the House, especially given his unwillingness to include in the Bill even a statement that the Secretary of State will take responsibility for the details. I happily give way and hope that the hon. Gentleman will be positive.

Mr. Squire: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants to drown me in praise, as he did earlier, or cover me with whatever the reverse of that might be. He conceded that two Government amendments will allow


for precisely what he has described to be dealt with by negative resolution if the House so agrees in due course. Apart from the amount of grant itself—and on that matter I can add little to the earlier exchanges between myself and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)—can the hon. Gentleman say what other areas he has in mind that might be covered in the way he suggested? I am interested in considering them.

Mr. Foster: I think that the Minister and I are beginning to go down the same track. There seems to be some agreement and there may be a positive resolution before the evening is out which will help us to find a way forward. The Minister asked what other areas I had in mind. I would include, for example, not simply the amount of money, but the grant criteria that would operate. We would want to discuss the nature of the settings in which provision is to be made.

Mr. Squire: rose—

Mr. Foster: The Minister is no doubt about to say that the grant setting is already included. We may wish to widen the definition if we are to consider the use of modern technology and other things that may arrive in the not too distant future. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would want a debate, followed by a decision, about the inspection arrangements. They are not currently included.
There seems to be some coming together of both sides of the House and I am grateful for that. Perhaps as the debate progresses there may be more. The real concern for many hon. Members is that the Bill gives a great deal of power to the Secretary of State without a real opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. Unless our amendments are accepted, when the Bill reaches another place, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will have a field day.

Ms Estelle Morris: I am amazed that the Minister has turned down the opportunity for even more debates such as those that we have shared over the past few months in Committee. But he seems to have wasted that opportunity, which is disappointing. The Bill involves much detail, and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has given us a list of subjects that should have proper parliamentary scrutiny. Like him, I feel that those are issues that their Lordships may address when the Bill reaches them. But, for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 7, after 'education', insert 'in England'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 8, page 3, line 17, leave out
'or Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales,'.
No. 20, in clause 10, page 3, line 30, leave out 'and Wales'.
No. 21, in schedule 1, page 4, line 14, leave out from 'England' to end of line 16.
No. 22, in page 4, line 27, leave out from 'England' to end of line 29.
No. 23, in schedule 2, page 5, line 38, leave out from 'England' to end of line 40.
No. 24, in page 8, line 23, leave out
', civil servants in the Welsh Office'.
No. 25, in page 8, line 25, leave out 'or the Welsh Office'.

Mr. Dafis: The amendments would exempt Wales from the provisions of the Bill. I tabled them for several reasons—first, because many people asked for an exemption for Wales. The Parent-Teacher Associations of Wales specifically asked for one, and that is an important sign, because its members are not the educational establishment but the very people for whose children nursery and other educational provision is intended. Moreover, that association speaks with the same voice as the overwhelming bulk of opinion in Wales—not just the local education authorities but educationists, parents and the public at large. They all overwhelmingly oppose the introduction of nursery vouchers.
As for the voluntary sector, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin opposes the idea in principle, and fears the Bill's effects on Welsh-medium education. Can the Minister give us any assurances on that aspect? The Select Committee report asks the Welsh Office—if, indeed, the scheme is applied in full—to monitor closely the effect of vouchers on Welsh-medium education.
The Welsh Language Board recently published the results of a survey showing that 50 per cent. of parents in Wales would choose Welsh-medium nursery education if the option were available. That is a fact of far-reaching significance. How do the Government propose to ensure that that wish of 50 per cent. of the parents of Wales can be met as we increase nursery school provision?
It must be admitted that the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association supports the scheme in principle. After all, it has a particular interest in doing so, because the scheme would make playgroups a more attractive option in comparison with local authority nursery classes than they are now. But even that body has expressed important reservations, because it is concerned that the scheme's benefits may be eroded if insufficient resources are made available. If that happens, it does not see how it could make the necessary capital investment in improved provision.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, because the report from the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector said that about three quarters of the settings in which playgroups operated were not of a sufficient standard. The Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association expressed strong concern about the need for capital funding if playgroups were to be eligible for the scheme. And so far as I know, the Minister has given no assurance on the subject.

Mr. Dafis: No, indeed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, even though he has used up the next sentence of my speech. It would certainly be interesting to hear whether the Minister is prepared to give any kind of undertaking.
I emphasise again what the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has already said—that the inspector's report on nursery provision in Wales emphasised the high quality of provision by local authorities in nursery schools


and classes, and showed how superior it was, by and large, to the provision in the voluntary and private sectors. There was consultation on the Welsh Office proposal, but although there was no suggestion of any support, the Government insisted on going ahead in the face of overwhelming opposition.
My next reason for tabling the amendments is that legislation on education matters should always be specific to Wales. That is a matter of principle. The Bill does not apply to Scotland; that is the regular pattern of things. I simply ask: if the Bill does not apply to Scotland, why should it apply to Wales? In all kinds of areas, we must move towards parity with Scotland.
Circumstances and tradition in Wales are radically different from those in England. That is why we need a parliament with primary legislative powers in Wales—a phrase which I often utter these days—to give us the right kind of provision in all kinds of areas. I shall return to that subject later.
The principle applies to nursery education and the provisions of the Bill in particular. I shall not at this stage rehearse the ways in which the situation in Wales is different, or set out what our priorities should be for early years education. I did that on Second Reading, and what I said is on the record. However, I urge hon. Members and everyone else interested in the subject to read the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on the nursery voucher scheme in Wales.
That report is carefully prepared and written, and it presents a pretty devastating condemnation of what is happening. In the first place, it points out that
Because of the investment already made by local authorities in Wales in under fives education, the benefit to Wales … will be much less than to England.
That is perhaps not altogether condemnatory, but my next quotation from the report certainly is. The report states:
It seems extraordinary to us that the Government has determined on introducing a voucher scheme for four year olds without first ascertaining the full extent of current provision.
In our questioning of Ministers, we had discovered that there had been no process of identifying the extent or nature of existing provision.
The Select Committee report also mentions the danger that provision for three-year-olds might be reduced as a result of the introduction of the voucher scheme. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that, too.
What I have said about the existing situation in Wales does not mean that we should be complacent. That danger, too, was mentioned in the Select Committee report. On Second Reading, I said that it was possible that much of the existing provision, of which we are so proud, would not be altogether appropriate. I mean, for example, the practice of providing for under-fives in primary and infant school classes. It is clear that the kind of education menu provided for children there may not give the intense learning experiences that constitute the real value of pre-school education before the age of five.
The report from the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector refers to that possibility. It says that LEA nursery schools and nursery classes provide high-quality pre-school education, but it makes a clear distinction between those and infant reception classes. We need

appropriate high-quality provision for pupils in the early years, with properly qualified staff, and we should be talking about a strategy for moving in that direction.
That means that we need change in Wales. We must not get ourselves into that familiar frame of mind in which we constantly react against change. That is why we need the powers to make the changes that are relevant to us. We need a policy for the development of early years education in Wales. I described such a policy in my speech on Second Reading.
We need not only the means not to apply the Bill in Wales—to opt out—but the means to be proactive and creative. I know that the hon. Member for Bridgend is going to speak. I would like to hear from him how the Labour party, if it forms a Government after the next general election, will enable the people of Wales to fashion an education system that suits our circumstances and priorities. It is a matter not just of not doing something but of being positive and constructive.
For example, how will Labour's assembly be proactive and not merely enable us to opt out of damaging provisions such as this? I do not see how Labour's current proposals, with secondary legislative powers at best—and perhaps not even those, according to the Labour leader—will give the people of Wales such powers. I covered that quickly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will now proceed to other matters, but perhaps the hon. Member for Bridgend can offer me some encouragement.
If ever there were a case of Wales being dragged in England's wake in a way that is irrelevant to our needs, it is this. The Select Committee report concludes, even though it is expressed with some understatement, with the devastating comment:
We are not convinced that in this case the possibility of taking Wales along another path was considered very seriously.
I am convinced that it was not considered at all. The report continues:
It is hard to believe that, if acting alone, the Welsh Office would have seen a voucher scheme as the most effective means of improving educational provision for four year olds in Wales.
That is pretty devastating. It is a perfect example of Wales's needs being ignored and our prospects being damaged by inappropriate legislation driven by other people's ideology and priorities.
I tabled an amendment that would have required a pilot project to be conducted in Wales in 1997–98 before introducing the full scheme. It was not selected, but I draw the Government's attention to it as a fallback from this amendment. It is still open to the Government to offer such a compromise and I appeal to them to do so, if they are not prepared to accept this amendment. The Select Committee recommended that there should be a pilot scheme. Will the Minister at least agree to have the matter debated in the other place to find out whether that would be reasonable? That would make good sense. There will be a general election before the scheme is properly implemented.

8 pm

Mr. Richards: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dafis: There will be one before the scheme has been properly implemented—a matter of months, at best, after the scheme begins to operate.
Labour is committed to scrapping the scheme in Wales, which is why my unselected amendment was relevant. It is not responsible to introduce such a revolutionary scheme. It is a demand-led instrument for developing education provision rather than a process of putting resources into provision. It changes the whole approach to the funding of education. It is not responsible to introduce such a scheme at such a time. However, a pilot scheme could be run and we could examine the situation to find out whether there was justification for such a change in the funding of education. I appeal to the Government to act responsibly in the matter and either accept our amendments or at least give us the fallback compromise.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Although we did not table specific amendments relating to Wales, our new clause 3, which dealt with the conditions under which a local authority could continue to operate its own provision with the consent of the members of the council and after consultation with the parents and other providers in its area, would have covered Wales.
The situation in Wales is different from that in England. In Wales, more than 90 per cent. of four-year-olds are already in maintained provision. In a couple of counties, which, unfortunately, are in many ways about to die—Clwyd and West Glamorgan—the figure is nearly 100 per cent. The lowest provision is in Gwynedd, at 77 per cent. It is clear that the Welsh counties, without any financial support from the Welsh Office, have been good providers of education for four-year-olds.
That provision is backed by that of the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. Although most of their provision is not for four-year-olds, they have some children of that age and, through their training schemes for their workers and volunteers, they have been at pains to raise standards.
The key point is the waste of money that the voucher scheme involves in Wales. For less expense than the additional money that the voucher scheme will cost, the Government could provide funding for local authorities to provide the extra 5 per cent. or so places that we need, and there would be no problems with the level of provision in Wales. Of course, there are still other problems and there will be problems under the voucher scheme.
The excellent report of Her Majesty's inspector in Wales was made on the basis of a year-long set of inspections in 1994 and 1995 in which 120 schools and 22 playgroups were inspected against an educational framework and bearing in mind the onset of the voucher scheme. The report's 23 pages showed clearly that the best-quality education—this was almost universal—was in nursery schools and classes. A little way behind came the reception classes and mixed-age infant classes that catered for four-year-olds. Quite a long way behind that came the playgroups.
That is not because the playgroups were failing to do what they intended but because in the past they have not tried to meet the formal educational objectives that schools in the maintained sector have been set. I pay tribute to the playgroups, the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, for being prepared to take part in the inspections. They gave themselves a framework against which to judge whether they would be ready to take part in the nursery voucher scheme.
The issue in Wales is the quality of provision, and raising that quality, without getting involved in the bureaucratic paperchase of the voucher scheme. The inspector's report made it clear that the strong points of provision were often down to the support given by the local education authority. For professional development and in-service training, local authority courses were vital in helping to raise teachers' standards. The report also showed that the local authority guidelines and advice notes to schools on curriculum planning meant that there were high standards in the maintained sector for curriculum planning. There should be no doubt: Wales does not need the scheme.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) mentioned the fact that the Welsh Office consultation had not produced much support. He could have said even more clearly that, as a result of one of his questions, it was shown that not one of the 1,100 responses supported the Government's voucher scheme. The Welsh Office put that down to mass misunderstanding; if it had been a teacher in front of a class of pupils, he or she would have been labelled unsatisfactory by an Ofsted inspection. If the Welsh Office says that everyone, without exception, misunderstood what it published about its scheme, it is just trying to wriggle out of the fact that its scheme is unpopular in Wales.
The inspectorate in Wales carried out a thorough investigation. The report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs made it clear that, having asked hundreds of questions of people who submitted evidence to it, there was no evidence to suggest that anyone in the Welsh Office had thought that the scheme was the way to fill in the 5 per cent. of places not yet provided in Wales. I hope that, even at the eleventh hour, the Minister will admit that the Welsh Office was grabbed by the scruff of its neck and dragged into the voucher scheme, come hell or high water, so that the bad record of English Tory councils was not over-exposed in the debate on how to improve provision.
I hope that the Minister will accept that Welsh county councils have an excellent record of provision and that the nursery voucher scheme will make no improvement that could not be achieved more cheaply and effectively, simply by providing the money directly to the local education authorities of Wales.

Mr.DavidHanson: I must place on record the excellent service that Clwyd county council provides in nursery education in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), the Under-Secretary of State. Clwyd county council provides nursery education for three and four-year-olds at an almost universal level. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) provide what is needed by my constituents and by people throughout Wales. There is no desire in Clwyd—indeed, in Wales—for any nursery vouchers. There is universal nursery education provision, and the people do not want and do not need the Government's scheme.
I have been astounded at the level of opposition to nursery vouchers in my constituency and throughout the rest of Clwyd. Political parties are often accused of stirring up issues, but I can honestly say that parents, parent-teacher associations, school governing bodies and


local authorities feel strongly about—and are even resentful of—the actions of the Welsh Office in proceeding with the proposal.
A couple of weeks ago, I received a 1,000-name petition from parents at Greenfield primary school in my constituency. Next Friday, I am going to Ysgol Glanrafon to receive petitions from parents in Mold. Next Monday, I am to receive a petition from every school in Hint. Those are not the actions of people who are politically motivated, but the actions of those who seek to defend the nursery education that their children have received for future generations.
The Minister should know about nursery education in the county of Clwyd; he represents one fifth of that county in the House. For him to come to the House tonight to argue against the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is to put in danger the nursery education that is provided in that council at an almost universal level.
There is a genuine fear among parents of children—both those who are at nursery school now and those who are rising to go to nursery school in future—that the voucher scheme will destroy all that is good about nursery education. It will not add anything to nursery education in Wales but will put at risk all that is good.
I plead with the Minister to accept the amendments and reconsider the issues. I see that he shakes his head, but he will reap the rewards of the amendment when he comes before the people of Clwyd, North-West at the next general election. When he does so, I feel sure that the local Labour candidate will prise from him the seat that he holds today. People in my county demand and need nursery education, and the Minister should accept the amendment.

Mr. Richards: If I were the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), I should be looking over my shoulder, because Councillor Karen Lumley will soon be upending him at the next general election.
If ever there was a group of amendments that was politically motivated, this is it. I say that to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) in all honesty and seriousness because, as he said, this is a matter of principle for his party. I sympathise with him politically, because his party makes no secret of the fact that it wants independence for Wales in all things—education, nursery voucher schemes and the rest. I respect him and his party for the unequivocal position that they adopt across the spectrum of political life. That is more than I can say for the Labour party.
I have looked at all the amendments, including amendment No. 17, and I have found that neither the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) nor any of his Front-Bench colleagues who speak on Welsh affairs have put their name to any of the amendments. That is the party that wants an assembly in Wales to discuss Welsh affairs—its policy on the subject does not bear scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North raised some serious points. He asked about monitoring the effects on Welsh-medium education—to which my answer is yes. He then asked how the Government would

meet the wishes of Welsh parents with regard to nursery education—my answer is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We shall offer parents the choice, so we shall discover whether we are meeting their needs in terms of the provision of nursery education.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about resources and raised the issue of capital funding. The Government will not be providing capital funding directly, but the voucher scheme contains an element for capital funding. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will see that the voucher scheme offers an income stream, against which providers can borrow.
Opposition Members continually talk about new build. As they have all been involved with Labour-controlled authorities, they can think only in terms of new build, but the voucher scheme—the income stream that it offers—does not necessarily mean new build; it can mean adapting or refurbishing buildings that currently provide nursery provision.
I shall talk later about the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, about four-year-olds and about the proposal's alleged effect on nursery provision for three-year-olds. Today Opposition Members have told us that there is no need for a voucher scheme in Wales and that there is already excellent provision for three and four-year-olds. The Opposition have asked why we should have additional bureaucracy; they have said that the cost of administration will be handed to local authorities and that the scheme will threaten provision for three-year-olds and jeopardise LEA planning.
I shall briefly deal with those matters. However, I must point out that we did not hear from any Opposition Members why parents in Wales should be denied the right to choice and to diversity, which are offered in England. Wales has good provision for four-year-olds, with some 90 per cent. of them receiving some form of education in the maintained sector. That is a record of which we should be proud and I congratulate the education authorities in Wales on that.
I am at one with the comments of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in this respect: we should not be carried away by that record. The actual provision varies in different parts of Wales—from 75 per cent. in Gwynedd to almost 100 per cent. in Clwyd and West Glamorgan. Even when local authority provision is at the highest level, that does not mean that parents necessarily have much choice about the sort of provision that they can have for their children.
The Government's commitment to extend nursery provision to all four-year-olds goes hand in hand with their wider policy of increasing parental choice and diversity of provision. Not only are we seeking to achieve 100 per cent. provision in Wales, but we want it to be achieved in a way that gives parents much greater scope in the type of provision that they can choose for their children. In that, there is no difference between England and Wales. That is what has led us to bring forward the voucher scheme; that is why we are determined that parents in Wales should not be denied the opportunities being offered to people in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Several Opposition Members have expressed opposition to the voucher scheme. Why is there significant opposition to the voucher scheme in Wales? There is a significant amount of misunderstanding about


the proposals. That is hardly surprising, given the scaremongering tactics of, and misleading material distributed by, what might be considered responsible bodies. It is little wonder that parents put their names to petitions and to pro forma letters that are printed by the hundred by schools when local education authorities encourage them to do so.
Bodies such as the Carmarthenshire Head Teachers Federation and the Clwyd Federation of Primary School Head Teachers have sent letters and material to parents in schools that are blatantly misleading, suggesting that LEA schools will be obliged to move from full-time to part-time provision, that parents will have to pay to make it up to full-time provision, that school budgets will be cut and that provision for three-year-olds will be reduced. That is misleading, mischievous and incorrect.
We have been told that the cost of administering the scheme—in effect, the contractor's cost—could have been given to LEAs to top up existing provision to achieve 100 per cent. cover. Why do Opposition Members think that only the LEAs have the right to provide education for four-year-olds, that LEAs always know what is best for children and that parents should meekly accept what is on offer and be grateful for it? I repeat, for the benefit of Opposition Members, that the Government believe in choice for parents, but that there is a price to pay for giving them that choice—and that is a price we are prepared to pay.
I refer to the threat to provision for three-year-olds. The threat is in the minds of those who conceive the voucher scheme only as a means of depriving local authorities of funding, of those who still do not seem to comprehend, despite all the assurances that we have given, that we will transfer no more than the value of the voucher—£1,100—from local authority funding per four-year-old place. I remind hon. Members that LEAs can continue to spend more than £1,100 per four-year-old place if that is what they want, and the funding made available for three-year-old provision will not be affected. There is no reason why the voucher scheme should affect provision for three-year-olds.
Any thinking LEA would say to itself, "If we increase the provision for three-year-olds, surely that will lead them to continue in the maintained sector when they become four-year-olds." In other words, there is an incentive for local education authorities to increase the provision to three-year-olds.
I welcome the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. It has made many interesting comments and I congratulate it on considering the voucher scheme thoroughly and expeditiously. I shall comment on its report in due course. I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North has said. I do not agree that the Select Committee's conclusions and comments on the voucher scheme are devastating.
I refer to the issue of a separate pilot phase for Wales. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the purpose of phase 1 of the pilot scheme was to look at procedures and mechanisms for the voucher scheme, and no more than that. We can learn as much from phase 1 in England as we could have done had we had a phase 1 in Wales. I made it perfectly clear, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, that had anyone come forward and offered to run the pilot scheme in Wales, we would have seriously considered the offer. However,

because of the political control under which, sadly, local education authorities operate in Wales, no one came forward and offered to run a pilot scheme.

Mr. Dafis: Is the Minister saying that the only purpose of the pilot scheme in England is to look at procedures, not to look at the effect of the voucher scheme on existing provision? The second factor ought to be a part of the consideration for the voucher scheme. If it were the case, there would be every justification for having a pilot scheme in Wales.

Mr. Richards: The primary purpose of the pilot scheme is to look at procedures and mechanisms for implementing the voucher scheme. Clearly, there are secondary issues, such as monitoring of the impact of the voucher scheme. That is self-evident. That gain is external to the introduction of the voucher scheme.
I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment.

Mr. Dafis: I am disappointed that the Minister has not been prepared to make any concessions, particularly on the pilot scheme. I trust that that issue can be proposed and discussed in another place. I hope that there is more flexibility at that time. The Government ought to listen carefully to informed public opinion in Wales and provide us with that significant concession. Having said that, and in the full confidence that the matter will be discussed in the other place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'for' to end of line 16 and insert
'children (whether at schools or other premises)—

(a) before their first school term starting after their fifth birthday (or, if they do not attend school, before such broadly corresponding time as may be prescribed), but
(b) after such earlier time as may be prescribed (whether by reference to their having attained a particular age or any other circumstances).'.

No. 28, in page 1, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
'( ) Grants may be made under arrangements under this section—

(a) to local education authorities in respect of nursery education provided at schools maintained by them, and
(b) to authorities and other persons of such descriptions as may be prescribed in respect of nursery education provided by them.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 3

REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
'(4) Such requirements shall include a duty upon an authority or other person to whom a grant is paid to publish the criteria for admission to any education provided by them by virtue of any grant under this Act, including any fees or supplementary payments relating to the admission of any child.'.
This is a new subsection to clause 3, which relates to requirements that the Secretary of State may put on providers of the new so-called nursery education, which we know will not quite appear as it does today. Optimism was expressed time and again by the Government in


Committee as to the providers who will emerge—I will not say from the woodwork, but from the ground or from wherever—to provide all the necessary places for those who may be eligible for vouchers. At no stage have the Government told us how this will happen. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside on 15 January 1996 at column 471, they provided a table showing the large number of new places that would be necessary in addition to those that already exist in maintained nursery schools, in maintained classes and in reception classes of primary schools.
It is true that there will be some existing private places in various areas, but the figures are extraordinary. In Norfolk—one of the counties under test, and the only one outside London—there are places for at most 40 per cent. of four-year-olds now, which means that at least half the children aged four in the county will require new places as soon as the next school year. Unless my figures—which I obtained in answers to parliamentary questions—are wrong, about 10,000 places will be required in Norfolk alone. 
8.30 pm
There may be a deficit. Perhaps fewer providers will present themselves. In time, the number of providers may increase, but we do not know. We also do not know who they will be. They might be firms from abroad; they might be supermarkets. If Compagnie Générate des Eaux can own what was the London and Brighton Railway, I suppose that it can own Brighton and South Coast Schools plc—I do not know, but it is all within the ambit of the legislation.
Importantly, there may well be an initial deficit of places, in which case it would be possible for certain things to happen. I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Employment:
what guidance she has given to accepted, or potential providers of early-years education concerning selection of children, or parents, holding vouchers relating to them, when valid applications for places exceed the capacity of the settings they are authorised, or able, to provide"—
the settings being the various types of accommodation and teaching available to pupils. The answer—from the Minister of State, as it happens—was thus:
Places will be allocated according to providers' admissions criteria which they will be required to publish."—[Official Report, 7 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 348.]
In other words, it would be possible for an admissions criterion to be a fee or an additional fee or the provision by parents of additional sums of money for this, that or the other—which, alas, happens all too often in our existing maintained schools.
I am therefore proposing amendment No. 42, which makes the following important provision:
Such requirements shall include a duty upon an authority or other person to whom a grant is paid to publish the criteria for admission to any education provided by them by virtue of any grant under this Act, including any fees or supplementary payments related to the admission of any child.
I should have thought that the amendment would appeal to the Conservative party and the Government, purely on the ground that, if those conditions are available to the

provider, as the Minister has said, and if there is a possibility—so far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent it in the Bill—of fees or supplementary payments being charged, they would want the parents to know, would they not?
This is all about parents' choice, the choice of the different settings and the different qualifications of the teachers and all the great choices that will now be laid before us—a feast of educational choice, according to the Minister and all the apologists for the scheme. We must therefore have information as to whether there are any additional payments. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment on those grounds alone—giving freedom of choice to parents who hold vouchers. Many people may be disappointed because a voucher does not mean a place. It was said in Committee that any fee or additional payment should be advertised, and there should be a provision in the Bill to show that it is a duty of the provider so to publish.

Mr. Richards: The amendment seeks to ensure that providers covered by the grant arrangements publish their admission policy, and fees relating to admission, as a requirement of grant.
We have already made clear our commitment, as set out in the next steps document, to make it a requirement of grant for providers to publish information for parents. I refer the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to pages 16 and 17—especially page 17—of that document. This is important, as it will enable parents to make informed decisions about their preferred choice of provider, and help to lever up standards. The document includes a list of information that providers will need to cover in their prospectuses, which includes the admission policy and, where applicable, the fee policy. Similar requirements will be applied in Wales.
I do not think, therefore, that the amendment is necessary. We are committed to ensuring that providers publish such information for parents, but it would be inappropriate to include that type of detail about the nature of the requirements of grant on the face of the Bill.
I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister's answer is extraordinary because, in the course of very few sentences, he contradicted himself. He referred to the so-called next steps document and pages 16 and 17, where there is a heading "Information for Parents". On page 17, it does say "fees (where applicable)" but if it is so important, why is it only in those guidelines? We have heard about guidelines before. If it is so important, and if parents are so important, and all this information is so important—especially on matters of the pocket, of supplementary money—self-evidently it should be in the Bill and thus in the Act.
I find the Minister's response so astounding that I am sure that the matter will be discussed at another time and in another place, where there is more time to go into it. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

POWER TO BORROW

Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move amendment No. 15, line 36, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State may not give consent under subsection (6) of section 68 of the Education Act 1993 unless he is satisfied that—

(a) the school will be able both to repay the sum borrowed and to pay interest thereon without recourse to additional grant from the funding authority for schools; and
(b) the borrowing is not to be secured against core fixed assets
and he shall by regulations specify the definition of core fixed assets for the purposes of this subsection.'.
The amendment seeks to safeguard grant-maintained borrowing. That raised much raucous laughter in Committee, because members of the Government could not understand how we would wish to protect the interests of schools that may or may not have opted for grant-maintained status but necessarily remain part of the educational fabric and will shortly be integrated into a new framework of local management of schools.
The amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill safeguards that were set out in the earlier consultation on that issue by the Department for Education and Employment, for which the Government repeated their support in Committee.

Mr. Pawsey: May we tease the hon. Gentleman to say a little more about the way in which grant-maintained schools will be reintegrated?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is a very simple matter, which we have well rehearsed on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The hon. Gentleman well knows that we propose a tripartite system of schools—community schools, aided schools and foundation schools—and that grant-maintained schools will be part of that. We are great advocates of that; we are not great advocates of a status that advantages a small number of schools to the disadvantage of many.
In Committee, while expressing support for the underlying objectives of such safeguards, Ministers argued that advice to the Funding Agency for Schools on considering applications—through a remit letter, whatever that might mean—would set out those safeguards and that it would be best to leave decisions to administrative discretion in the light of specific local circumstances rather than set out the safeguards in legislation. Indeed, we have been told several times that that will include a requirement for grant-maintained schools to prove their case first to the Funding Agency for Schools.
Opposition Members should be forgiven if we take such assurances with a large pinch of salt. I, for one, recall the assurances that the Opposition were given that grant-maintained status in itself would not be extended to schools that were due to be closed under the surplus places proposals, but that somersault took place in the face of a decline in the number of applications for grant-maintained status at that time. While that programme continues to grind to a halt, a desperate Government are liable to do anything to encourage schools to become grant-maintained.
The amendment provides an opportunity to probe further into the nature of the remit letter and what factors the Funding Agency for Schools for England should bear in mind when considering whether assets are core assets. It will also provide an opportunity to explore the links between core assets and the new Education (School Premises) Regulations, which were approved yesterday against strong opposition from Labour Members. We argue that links between the two proposals are indissoluble.
On the question of the relevance of inserting these safeguards into legislation, it might be sensible to stress that little should be left to chance when defining the terms under which such borrowing can take place because we are dealing with the future of education for the nation's children. Placing conditions in the Bill will help to ensure that there is no abuse of borrowing arrangements, and that the effect on children's education will be limited. At the very least, this debate will provide useful material in Hansard for hon. Members to digest and it should provide some further insight on the status of a remit letter.
I do not mean to suggest that there will be any impropriety by schools, but some school governors might feel that they can embark on a set of proposals for which they are particularly ill-suited because they do not have the depth of experience or knowledge. We examined that possibility in great detail in the debate. I expect that the Minister will come back on that and say that that is the role of the FAS, but many Opposition Members would argue that that agency is very partial when it comes to reflecting the whims of Government policy.
The Under-Secretary of State's contributions on core assets in the Standing Committee were less than clear. He argued that there was a proposed working definition of core assets, covering those that are
essential to a school's function or needed to meet statutory requirements.
He then explained the problem of providing such a definition because circumstances in schools varied—of course they vary. The FAS should decide instead on a case-by-case basis, though he suggested two rules of thumb:
Is the asset essential to allow the school to meet statutory requirements? Is the asset essential to its functions in other respects?
Later still, he suggested:
The starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools for England is that all school buildings are core assets. It would be open to a school to argue when it submits its loan application to the FAS that particular buildings are not essential to the school's functioning".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 February 1996; c. 406–7.]
Which is it to be? Who will decide—the FAS or the school itself? How will a remote body, such as the FAS, be able to assess whether a school's assertion that an asset is not essential is accurate? Should not the views and advice of parents, governors and the local education authority—which would still have an overarching responsibility in the vast majority of local education areas—be sought? Would it not be more sensible to set out in regulations a framework against which applications should be judged? Could not that include some scope for local discretion?
We believe that it would be far better for the legislation to go further and spell out detail along the lines set out in the earlier consultation. When the Minister responds and


defines core assets, perhaps she will tell us which of the following, many of which I adumbrated in Committee, are open for use as collateral: classrooms; subject rooms such as art, drama, photography and history rooms; common areas such as assembly halls and gymnasiums; common open areas, including those that are planted with grass or landscaped, and car parks; playing fields; playgrounds; office accommodation for senior staff, which is particularly appropriate because we expect that there will be more administration, whether in grant-maintained or locally managed schools; and staff rooms and rooms made available to sixth formers or to pupils for club activities—we know that such provision was singularly lacking in the regulations passed yesterday, but there are still references to that type of provision in the guidelines.
8.45 pm
Could any of the following be used as collateral: accommodation for caretakers and other staff, science laboratories, technology rooms and workshops, audio-visual and theatre facilities, swimming pools or libraries? The list is endless. We would like the Minister to tell us which of those core assets will covered by the legislation.
I should like to tell the Minister about three of my recent experiences in schools while travelling around the country. I do not expect her to comment on individual schools, and I know that she has already declined to comment on one, for very good reason, but I think that my experiences can serve as good illustrations of the problems that schools face.
The first school was the Monk Fryston Church of England primary school, in the Selby area of Yorkshire. That school was originally built for 40 children, but it now takes in 120 children. We can argue all we like about the way in which one classroom serves as the school hall, gymnasium, dining room and storage room, or about the overcrowding of the various facilities there. Outside that school, however, encroaching on the playgrounds—which were conveniently taken out of the Education (School Premises) Regulations last night—are demountables. Are they core assets?
As I mentioned demountables, the second example came to mind. Last Friday, I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) at Sowerby Bridge high school. I have also noted what the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) said in the debate about the time when he was education chairman for Calderdale, when that school was pleading for new demountables, some of which had been there for 40 years as temporary accommodation. The hon. Gentleman was subsequently elected as a Member of Parliament, and he has presumably failed to advance the case of that high school and its problems with its 13 demountables. Are they core assets? I doubt very much whether Sowerby Bridge high school could deliver the national curriculum without those demountables. Are they permanent features?
The third example is probably one of the strangest I have encountered, and I have travelled to many schools. I was recently at a primary school in Gravesham, which is adjacent, on a very large site, to a grant-maintained secondary school. The peculiarity is that the primary school is on one part of an open site. After a forced route

march, one gets to the other half of the school, which is part of a quadrangle, three parts of which belong to the secondary school. That is a grant-maintained school. One has to cross the playground to get to the primary school. I wonder which is the core asset. We know that, under the minimum space regulations, schools have been allowed much latitude in terms of playgrounds, but is the playground a core asset? Is it a core asset of the secondary grant-maintained school, or is it a core asset of that primary school given that it provides access from one half of the school to the other?
I know that the Minister wants to reply, so I shall conclude soon. We have more than 24,000 schools. We know that only a small minority of them—about 1,100—are in the grant-maintained sector, but policies affecting grant-maintained schools have a habit of being introduced for other schools. I am sure that many of the grant-maintained schools are also in difficult circumstances.
I can foresee that, without a definition of core assets, many problems will arise when loans are taken out on the basis of core assets. I foresee at least two results. First, it will damage the provision of what we term core education and, in particular, provision of the national curriculum. Secondly, unless we are extremely careful, someone else will pick up the tab for it. In Committee, we were told that governors would not be jointly and severally liable, which I accept, but we were also told that no guarantee will be provided by the Secretary of State or the FAS. That being so, and if one cannot convince potential lenders that they have an asset that is a realisable security, why, for goodness sake, does clause 6 provide for such borrowing? We asked the same question repeatedly in Committee. A paradox seems to exist and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain it to the House.

Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has clearly marked out the difference between the Opposition and the Government on this important matter. We are in favour of the careful and prudent use of taxpayers' money, but the Government are quite happy about the careless and imprudent use of the exceedingly limited resources for school buildings.
The Opposition know that clause 6 is largely superfluous. I have already spoken to a number of grant-maintained school heads and their governors, who cannot conceive how they will find the money from their revenue budgets to pay back the loans envisaged under the Bill. They do not understand what part of their land or buildings they could use as collateral against such loans.
As I said to the Minister in Committee, even a modest building in a school could cost up to £500,000 to provide. At the very minimum, a school would have to pay back about £50,000 a year out of its revenue budget to finance that building. That is approximately the cost of two and a half teachers. That repayment could go on not just for one or two years but for between 10 and 30 years. Such is the length of time that that school would have to forgo teachers in order to provide for the new building. Unfortunately, the Government are trying to treat schools rather like businesses, but very few comparisons can be properly made.
Yes, we are happy that schools should have financial autonomy, but no, schools do not have an unlimited ability to expand. Of course, schools get most of their money from the public purse.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jamieson: Time is short and the hon. Gentleman seems to have just popped in for a few minutes, so he will understand why I will not give way to him.
The amendment would ensure, as any lender would in other circumstances, that the borrower could pay back the money. The key question is whether a borrower can pay back the loan and the interest. It seems infinitely sensible to the Opposition that that safeguard should be included in the Bill. We want to know that that borrowing can be repaid without further recourse to other funds that a school may call upon the Funding Agency for Schools to provide.
The amendment would also ensure that the borrowing is not made against core assets. At this stage we need a clear definition of the core assets against which a school cannot borrow. No clear definition is supplied in the Bill. It is important to know that definition because, if a school defaulted on its payments, are we to assume that those assets could be repossessed? Could the bailiffs go into the science room and take the equipment out? Is that what the Minister is suggesting? If not, what is the point of using those assets as collateral? Children's education is far too important to be left to the vagaries in the Bill. We need a clear definition of the core assets.
We are told that the Funding Agency for Schools will consider loan applications. If, once the Bill is enacted, the agency received between 100 and 200 applications, to how much scrutiny would it subject each of those bids? Will it find time to send officials to look closely at a school's buildings and assets to see whether they meet the definition of core assets? Those of us who sat on the Committee considering the Education Bill in 1993 will know that we were told that the Funding Agency for Schools would have a light touch. If it is required to scrutinise in detail loan applications, that is not equivalent to a light touch. For that reason, the Bill needs to contain a clear definition of core assets.
What we need, and, most of all, what parents and governors need, is a yardstick against which the applications will be measured. The Opposition appreciate that the matter is too important to be left to the terms of the Bill as currently drafted. The Bill should contain a clearer definition of core assets. I invite the Minister to make that clear to us now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The one thing that the Opposition cannot bear is the success of the Government's education policy—for example, on the national curriculum, testing and, in particular, grant-maintained schools. Those schools are successful and well run. They have demonstrated that they know how to use self-governing status wisely. We want to recognise that fact by giving them the additional freedom to borrow money on the commercial market.
Amendment No. 15 would include in the Bill some of the Government's proposed administrative safeguards on borrowing by GM schools. We have made it clear on a

number of occasions that those schools will be allowed to borrow only if they can service any debt from their income without prejudicing their main business. I can assure the House that there is no question of the Government making additional grant available to GM schools to allow them to take out larger loans. Recurrent funding for GM schools will continue to be directly related, as it is now, to the funds received by schools maintained by local education authorities.
The other part of the amendment relates to core assets. I can confirm that GM schools will not be allowed to offer core assets—those that are essential to their functioning—as collateral. I am pleased to see that the Opposition have taken on board those proposals and agree with us about the need for safeguards on commercial borrowing by GM schools.
Safeguards are necessary for three main reasons: first, to protect the public interest in publicly funded assets; secondly, to ensure that schools can continue to provide education in accordance with their statutory responsibilities; and thirdly, to maintain public accountability for the use of public funds.
Although we agree with the Opposition about the need for safeguards, we think that applying them in the form implied by the amendment will introduce unnecessary inflexibility. We resisted similar amendments in Committee. We resist amendment No. 15 because we take a sensible and consistent view about what should properly be contained in primary legislation and what should not.
That represents the essential difference between our approach and that of the Opposition. We are in favour of choice and diversity, whereas the Labour party is in favour of uniformity and prescription from the centre. In diversifying circumstances, it is entirely inappropriate for such detail to be prescribed in legislation. We want to leave GM schools the ability to act effectively.
I can understand that the Labour party, which seeks to prescribe a uniform system, would want to enter every small, detailed point in primary legislation. Even if we agree with the general objective, we do not want to reach it by some form of Procrustean bed.
Opposition Members also want us to define in regulations what is a core fixed asset. That is both unnecessary and undesirable, although we understand the concerns that underlie it. Defining core assets in regulations is difficult because the circumstances of individual schools vary so widely.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) repeated word for word what we said in Committee, so he knows our two simple rules of thumb: whether the asset is essential to allow the school to meet statutory requirements and whether it is essential to its functioning in other respects. I am pleased that he appears to have listened carefully in Committee as he noticed that the starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools is that all buildings are core assets.
I hope that Opposition Members recognise that, although we share their concerns about the importance of protecting publicly funded assets, such decisions are best left to administrative discretion in the light of specific local circumstances.
In Committee, Opposition Members produced a number of powerful arguments against their own amendment. They gave us a long list of facilities—


including photographic studios, gymnasiums, information technology rooms, assembly halls, sports halls and landscaped areas—that they thought should be defined in regulations as core assets.
We agree that such units may well be essential to a school's functioning, but whether they are or not depends on such considerations as the use to which governors wish to put them and the other facilities that are available on the school's site—in other words, on specific local circumstances. Opposition Members think that photographic studios should be core assets, but what if a school has two? Should they both be core assets? The answer will depend on local conditions and it does not make sense to anticipate all possible contingencies in regulations.
9 pm
I thought that the House would want to know the reason for the legislation, as Opposition Members have asked. They have often alluded to the fact that schools would not want to borrow. I am pleased to say that a school in the south-east wants to borrow funds and extend its buildings and has already, in anticipation of the Bill, had discussions with bankers in principle about a loan. Two schools in the south-east intend to borrow £500,000 each, in both cases to finance the construction of a performing arts centre. Another wants to borrow to improve its sports facilities. A school in East Anglia is currently preparing a substantial project to be financed by borrowing. Another in the south-east intends to borrow money to build a new caretaker's house.
The grant-maintained school movement has been a great success for the Government. Opposition Members take every possible opportunity to try to scupper the grant-maintained movement. To put it into perspective, the hon. Member for Walton has said on many occasions—but it bears repetition—
The Minister cannot be in any doubt that we"—
in the Labour party—
have made a firm commitment to abolish GM status because it is not compatible with our new arrangements for schools."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 February 1996; c. 373.]
That is another Procrustean bed.
The amendment is not necessary. It is a mischievous, dog-in-a-manager amendment. The Opposition want to get rid of grant-maintained schools, but they want to spoil them on the way. I urge all my hon. Friends to vote against this useless amendment.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady has evinced on many occasions her interest in all matters concerning the regions of outer space between the galaxies. She has a far more informed knowledge of the core of the galaxy than she has of core assets. It is the height of gall that she should accuse us of having stolen the Government's ideas on core assets.
Conservative Members might argue that we explored GM borrowing ad nauseam. As for the Procrustean beds that the hon. Lady accuses us of desiring, there must be a black hole in my knowledge of Greek mythology. I put it down to the notion that working-class heroes like myself were lucky to find a potato sack on the dock road.
The proposals put forward by the hon. Lady tonight will do nothing to advance the educational interests of the vast majority of our children. More importantly from the hon. Lady's perspective, they will do absolutely nothing to encourage the grant-maintained sector. That is evidenced by its response, which was mentioned on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement several weeks ago: less than 5 per cent. of grant-maintained schools bothered to respond. Overwhelmingly, grant-maintained schools were not interested in taking on further debt.
Given the Government's failure to make a clear commitment on what core assets ought to be, so that schools can guarantee the delivery of the national curriculum, we feel impelled to vote for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 271.

Division No. 83]
[9.04 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Alton, David
Cunningham, Roseanna


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dafis, Cynog


Armstrong, Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Donohoe, Brian H


Bell, Stuart
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Etherington, Bill


Berry, Roger
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blunkett, David
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Galloway, George


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chidgey, David
Godsiff, Roger


Chisholm, Malcolm
Golding, Mrs Llin


Church, Judith
Gordon, Mildred


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ann
Gunnell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Jean
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Margaret


Cummings, John
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)






Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pearson, Ian


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Tessa
Rendel, David


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Simpson, Alan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McKelvey, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Stott, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


MacShane, Denis
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Alice
Timms, Stephen


Marek, Dr John
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Touhig, Don


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Trickett Jon


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Watson, Mike


Milburn, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Miller, Andrew
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley, Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Wise, Audrey


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wray, Jimmy


Mudie, George
Wright, Dr Tony


Mullin, Chris



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Peter Hain.


O'Brien, William (Normanton)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bates, Michael





Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gallie, Phil


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, Sir George


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gillan, Cheryl


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Churchill, Mr
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith






Marland, Paul
Spencer, Sir Derek


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Merchant, Piers
Spring, Richard


Mills, Iain
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moate, Sir Roger
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thomason, Roy


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trend, Michael


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wilkinson, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Willetts, David


Sackville, Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Sir Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Garry Streeter and Mr. Derek Conway.


Speed, Sir Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 2, line 40, at beginning insert—
'( ) In this Act "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
No. 30, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
', and (b) may contain such incidental, supplementary, saving or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.'.—[Mr. Robin Squire.]

Schedule 1

NURSERY EDUCATION GRANTS: INSPECTIONS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 5, line 5, leave out

'by regulations made by the Secretary of State'.
No. 32, in page 6, line 6, leave out
'the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe'
and insert 'may be prescribed'.
No. 33, in page 7, leave out lines 44 to 46 and insert—
'13.—(1) Where a person has conducted an inspection under paragraph 6 he shall make his report in writing to the Chief Inspector within such period as may be prescribed, subject to any extension not exceeding three months which the Chief Inspector may consider necessary.
 (2) Once the report of an inspection has been made to the Chief Inspector under sub-paragraph (1) he shall without delay send a copy of it to such authorities and persons as may be prescribed.'.—[Mr. Robin Squire.]

Schedule 2

NURSERY EDUCATION GRANTS: DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 8, line 26, leave out from 'Office' to end of line 29.
The amendment, which perhaps was missed in Committee, might be described as a gentle probing amendment. It proposes the deletion of paragraph l(l)(b), which states that the schedule applies to
any person exercising any function by virtue of section 2 and any persons who are employed by (or are directors or other officers of) any such person or who carry out the administrative work of any such person.
The schedule relates to the disclosure of information about social security
Paragraph 2 of the schedule states:
The Secretary of State may supply to any person to whom this Schedule applies any such social security information as the person may require for or in connection with the exercise of any function relating to grants in respect of nursery education.
The Bill is legally interesting: it is written in high legal code. In order to understand what the schedule means, we must find out what persons are involved in section 2—or clause 2, as it currently is. Clause 2 states:
Arrangements under section 1 may provide for grants to be made, or other functions relating to grants to be exercised, otherwise than by the Secretary of State.
I am glad to see that the present Secretary of State is here, waiting for Third Reading, to which we shall come shortly.
Because schedule 2 gives authorisation to "any person", the Secretary of State and her successors can ask any other person to take over any function relating to grants involving so-called nursery education. That person can be a provider; the provider could presumably be Capita or its successors, or any sub-contractor—if that is allowed in the contract—or, indeed, any number of people. The possibilities are mind-boggling.
That person could be an employee of such a provider of education, a director of a nationwide firm, or—dare I mention it again—of an international firm, who supplies education by virtue of being a provider, whether for one school or for a large number. Schedule 2 empowers the Secretary of State to supply a whole range of people: sub-contractors, providers, some voluntary, some mutual, some, perhaps, private firms, with an unimaginable range


of information relating to social security. Later in the schedule is printed half a page of what will happen to those people if they misuse that information.
I want to know—I think that the Minister can now tell us—why social security information must be disclosed to such a wide range of people. It is unlikely now that even the head of a school—he or she would probably not dream of doing so—has any right to go to the social security office to obtain information about the circumstances of a parent. I cannot see that happening. It may happen, but I very much doubt it. Schedule 2 gives legal effect on a whole range of people who are not professional teachers or members of a local education authority, but who instead can be in a myriad of private firms involved in the execution of this important Bill.
Will the Minister explain why on earth that power is in the Bill? Will it go as widely as I think the Bill suggests? Should it not be cut down a great deal?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman has impressed us throughout the Bill with his concern on many matters, but I often think that he is just a little off beam. We are all concerned to maintain the confidentiality of social security information. It is essential that we exert a great deal of care over the way in which that information is used and who has access to it. That is why schedule 2 makes it an offence to breach that confidentiality and sets out the penalties that would be incurred by anyone who did so.
If the contractor appointed to run the scheme was unable to have access to the child benefit centre database, that would result in a poorer service for parents, the contractor would be unable to offer as much help over the parents' queries and it would take longer for voucher applications to be processed. It could result in more expensive administration. It would require the involvement of the child benefit centre in the administration of the scheme, which would add extra stages to the processing of voucher applications. Finally, it would give us a less secure system, because checks to prevent fraudulent requests for vouchers would be more difficult to carry out.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment would place an unnecessary restriction on the supply of that information and would be detrimental to the administration of the scheme. Therefore, I hope to be able to persuade him to withdraw it.

Mr. Spearing: I said that it was a probing amendment, and the Minister has been partly helpful. I was not deleting the penalties. Far from it; they are essential. It is clear that the administration of the scheme will be very much involved—rather like housing benefit—in the social security system. I put a big question mark over that. It might be necessary to obtain some information relating to social security to avoid fraud, but that is not one of the purposes of the Bill.
I conclude from what the Minister said that schedule 2 is a means of integrating the administration of the scheme, which is complex in itself, with the social security machinery of the locality, or perhaps a wider region, or even a national scale. That is new, and although it may be implicit in the minds of the Department and of Whitehall, it could perhaps be done in a more expeditious and economic way. That matter will engage those concerned in further stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 8, line 30, leave out from second 'information' to 'was' in line 33 and insert
'of a prescribed description which'.—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Schedule 3

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 11, line 6, at end insert—
'. In section 162 of that Act (provision by local education authority of goods and services in connection with special educational needs), after subsection (2) insert—
(2A) A local education authority may supply goods or services to any authority or other person (other than a governing body within subsection (1) above) for the purpose only of assisting them in making for any child in respect of whose education grants are (or are to be) made under arrangements under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 any special educational provision which any learning difficulty of the child calls for.".'.

No. 36, in page 11, line 6, at end insert—
'. In section 305(1) of that Act (interpretation), before the definition of "financial year" insert—
 "the Education Acts" means the Education Acts 1944 to 1996,".
.In section 306 of that Act (index), before the entry relating to "financial year" insert—
"the Education Acts section 305(1)".'. —[Mrs. Gillan.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 11, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 308(2), the words "(referred to in this Act as "the Education Acts")".'.

[Mrs. Gillan.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is about promoting choice, diversity and standards in education, and those have been at the heart of the Government's education reforms. I shall deal first with choice. It is parents who know what is best for their children, and it is teachers, parents and governors who know what is best for pupils at local schools. The Bill will, over time, deliver choice to parents who want to give their four-year-olds the best possible start in life, and it will extend the range of options that are open to grant-maintained school governors who want to improve the facilities that they provide for pupils.
Secondly, I shall deal with diversity. In order to have genuine choice, there must be diversity of provision. The Bill will encourage such diversity. It will expand the provision of the good-quality nursery education that parents want in the maintained, the private and the voluntary sectors. It will help to drive up standards by providing good-quality, inspected education with agreed


outcomes for all four-year-olds, and it will allow grant-maintained schools to build on their individual strengths by acquiring appropriate new assets. In short, the Bill will help parents, teachers and governors to make their own decisions about their own affairs.
I was pleased to note the extent of agreement in Committee and in the House today about the importance of good-quality nursery education. We want a significant expansion of nursery education. Over time, the expansion will lead to a place for every four-year-old whose parents want one, and we have no intention of compromising on quality. We already have the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's desirable learning outcomes. These goals for pre-school education resulted from extensive consultation and command widespread support among parents and professionals. The Bill contains proposals for an inspection system under Ofsted which will ensure that all providers are working towards those goals.
I note the concerns about staff qualifications, ratios and premises. Those matters are important and nursery education providers are in no doubt about what is required of them, but it will be up to them to decide how to achieve the goals that we have set.

Dr. Hampson: Will there be flexibility about how those standards are determined? Much of our debate on Report was about standards seemingly being related to buildings, the size of the classroom and classroom facilities and so on. In my constituency there are hardly any local authority-provided nursery facilities, and about half of them would not meet the requirements on buildings and classrooms that Opposition Members insisted upon in our earlier debate. I am talking about places that are provided by local authorities in their buildings. We have to acknowledge, do we not, that it is about standards of teaching and not—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is an inordinately long intervention.

Mrs. Shephard: Of course the arrangements will be interpreted flexibly, but it is important that the educational outcomes and inspections are considered and applied with great care because our quality controls are clearly focused on the outcome, which is good-quality education for four-year-olds. That is what matters most and the twin pillars of the SCAA's desirable learning outcomes and Ofsted's inspection framework will help institutions to achieve such quality. Most importantly, the introduction of nursery education vouchers will put parents in the driving seat.

Ms Hodge: In Norfolk after 1 April, when parents, one presumes, have their £1,100 voucher, but find that they have no place, to whom will they turn—to the school, to the local education authority, to Capita or to the Government? Who is responsible for not giving that choice to those parents in April?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but 388 providers from the voluntary and private sectors are registered for the scheme and there will be 22 new nursery units. Those providers in Norfolk must provide only eight places each to ensure that every child

in Norfolk who is eligible for a place but who has no place in local education authority provision will have one provided in the private and voluntary sectors. I recognise that that is a disappointment to her, but that is how it is.
Local authorities and other providers already do much for four-year-olds in a variety of ways. The Bill will not necessarily change the pattern or diversity of provision where that provision is good, where it meets parents' needs and where that is what they choose. Vouchers will be a stimulus to parents and providers alike. It is parents who will choose the right setting for their children. Our proposals will ensure that providers are responsive to what parents want.
One Wandsworth head teacher said:
This arrangement"—
the voucher scheme—
pushes me to raise standards. We cannot afford to be lax or complacent. Anything that forces me to give my utmost should be welcomed.
Another said:
If private nurseries are providing a better quality of education and my parents are looking to go out there, then I want to see what they are providing, and improve my position. That's what it's about. That's what education is about.
Parents naturally have the highest aspirations for their children. Our proposals will allow them to realise those aspirations. Unlike Opposition Members, we believe in fulfilling the aspirations of all parents. In contrast, Opposition Members would deny to other people's children the opportunities that they seize eagerly for their own. When nursery education will be extended for the first time and funded to the tune of a total of £750 million to every parent who wants it in this country, with an inspection framework and with agreed educational outcomes, I find it extraordinary that all we should hear from the Labour party is a collective whine about such education not being confined to the public sector. How well that illustrates that, despite its new designer vocabulary, which extends to knowing the word "diversity", it is still locked in the grip of institutions at the expense of individuals' interests.

Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State did not have the opportunity to join us in Committee, but she will have discovered from her ministerial colleagues that, throughout the deliberations in Committee, no hon. Member from either side of the Committee suggested that the state sector was the only way in which high-quality provision could be made. Does she agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that high-quality provision can be made by a mixture of state, private and voluntary sector provision?

Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear it and pleased that, during a few short weeks, my colleagues have achieved such good conversions among Opposition Members.
We are already beginning to see the fruits of our plans in the four authorities involved in phase 1. Interest in the scheme has been great. In the phase 1 regions, more than 600 private and voluntary sector providers have registered to join the scheme, alongside maintained schools. Of those, at least 40 have no four-year-olds now and will be providing new places. Some 200 providers have


already inquired about phase 2. The helpline has taken more than 20,000 calls from parents and others and some 95,000 copies of the information pack are in circulation.
It gives me great satisfaction that children and parents in those regions will shortly benefit. The first vouchers are already in the hands of parents.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that North Yorkshire education authority has not joined the pilot scheme—even though it claims, rightly, that the majority of four-year-olds are provided for in nursery education? Will she confirm that local authority provision is not threatened by the Bill? Does she agree that a written answer by our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stating that there are still some 880,000 surplus school places shows that there is plenty of capacity for expansion of nursery education in the state system?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted that the time draws nearer for North Yorkshire children and other children and parents throughout England and Wales to benefit from phase 2 of the scheme, under this Bill.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I want to ask my right hon. Friend the same question I asked on Second Reading, in common with other hon. Friends—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who spoke earlier—about the assessment of phase 1. Will she reiterate her view that there will be genuine assessment; that if there are lessons to be learnt, they will be; and that where something does not work, it will not be imposed in phase 2 without that fact being taken into account?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in these matters. I assure him that we shall evaluate exactly how the scheme works as phase 1 proceeds. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already given an assurance that we shall consider evidence from the inspections when they come on stream this autumn.
I need to make some speedy progress, so I will not take further interventions. I shall also curtail what I had planned to say to give other hon. Members time to speak.
The second part of the Bill concerns grant-maintained schools, which are a success story. There are now 1,100 stretching from Devon to Cumbria. They include schools large and small; primary, secondary and special. Parents from all walks of life make GM schools their first choice. Those parents include several hon. Members—indeed, some distinguished Labour Members—who obviously appreciate the freedoms that enable GM schools to produce such excellent results. It is a pity that their views are not shared by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). His plans would destroy the essence of the GM schools that some of his colleagues enjoy. We, on the other hand, have always said that self-governing status would be successful. Parents also say so when they vote for schools to become self-governing, and now Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has confirmed it.
Since 1989, the schools have built up a well-deserved reputation for high standards, excellence of provision and popularity with parents. That is because they believe in

themselves and in what is best for pupils. It is small wonder that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and several of their colleagues are queuing up for places at GM schools for their own children. [Interruption.] GM schools quite naturally want to provide the best possible facilities for their pupils—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions.

Mrs. Shephard: Commercial borrowing will provide additional resources on top of grants already available. Controls on borrowing operated by the Funding Agency for Schools, on behalf of the holder of my office, will ensure that schools are prudent. Subject to those controls, commercial borrowing will enable more capital projects to be supported in more schools. It should also help governors to enter into partnerships with the private sector under the private finance initiative.
Giving borrowing powers to GM governing bodies will bring them into line with other self-governing institutions, such as colleges of further and higher education. It will help them to run their own affairs. It will give them increased power to decide how they want to develop to meet the needs of their pupils and the local community.
The Government's policies have transformed the educational scene. We have driven up standards, increased parental choice and put the power of decision making back where it belongs—with parents, teachers and governors. By contrast, Labour Members say that they support choice—they certainly support it for some. They have learnt how to pronounce the word "diversity". Yet when presented with the chance to give positive support to real choice for all parents and real diversity of school provision, they retreat to the familiar collective protection of the interests of the institution over those of parents and children.
This Bill is about real choice, real diversity and a real increase in standards. That is what Conservative Members believe in. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. David Blunkett: In opposing Third Reading, I thank my hon. Friends who spoke both for England and for Wales from the Opposition Front Bench, and also my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, for the excellent way in which they have dealt with the Bill both in Committee and throughout today. They have drawn attention to the fact that where there is no place, there is no choice, and where there is no provision, there is no opportunity for parents to redeem their voucher.
The notion that the Secretary of State has put forward tonight, that this is the first major expansion of nursery education in this country—she has just reiterated it—is a shocking observation which will be resented by parents, schools, other providers and by the local education authorities, most but not all of them Labour controlled, which have expanded the nursery education programme against the vehement opposition of the Government over 17 years.
We have welcomed the Conservative party's conversion, at last, to the idea that nursery education is right for the children of this country and that by expanding


it we can give children a decent start in life, and build the opportunities and standards that the Opposition have been promoting. In authorities across the country, against the odds, with reductions in budgets and the abuse that we experienced 15 months ago, when authorities were held to account for daring to spend money on nursery education, we have pressed forward with that cause.
To suggest, as the Secretary of State has done tonight, that providing a paper promise is an alternative to expanding real nursery education, is an insult to the British people. They know, as people involved with the pilot projects have discovered, that a voucher does not offer a nursery place in their locality or within their reach.
Instead of proceeding as the Government are doing, we have offered to sit down with the Government, with the Liberal Democrats and with the private, voluntary and statutory providers to arrange for development plans to be drawn up in every local authority in England and Wales to ensure that we provide those nursery places. But the Government have rejected that suggestion, as they rejected every amendment and every effort to try to make sense of a nonsensical Bill.
The Government rejected the proposal that special consideration and weighted provision should be given to children with special educational needs. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, expressed his interest in special needs. I accept his commitment and his belief in the importance of that area—but he of all people, as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as for Education, should know the difference between standard spending assessment and grant, between a myth or a shadow and real resources.
The Government may be able to play ducks and drakes with the British people for one more year, but they will not be able to continue to draw a veil over the eyes of those who will soon see what is being done to them. People will try to redeem their voucher and find that there is no place. As in the pilot projects, people who are already receiving a perfectly decent free place, with highly qualified staff, for their children, and who therefore understandably throw their vouchers in the bin, will not be able to understand why their local nursery school or reception class asks them to fish it out again and present it, so that it can be sent round in a bureaucratic nightmare, to redeem through a chaotic bureaucratic mechanism the same money as is already being provided.
This is the biggest nonsense that the Government have ever invented. They have attempted to create an artificial market where none exists instead of drawing together private, voluntary and local authority providers to plan places. I have to tell the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) that the Government have not planned it in a way that would make it possible to build up places by planning them in neighbourhoods that did not have them and working with parents and teachers in schools to provide them. The idea that a market system and a piece of paper can provide something that people sitting down and working together cannot plan is nonsense. The Secretary of State knows that. It is not only that in its early stages she opposed the scheme, but that her colleagues know that she did.
In the Sunday Express last Sunday—[Interruption.] That is not exactly known as a socialist newspaper. It said:
Sources close to Mrs. Shephard say the voucher scheme—launched last month … has flopped.
They say that she thinks it is Mr. Major's fault for forcing her to go ahead with the scheme despite her doubts.
It continues:
'It is the same old story with the vouchers and grammar schools. Some bright spark in Downing Street has a bright idea, but doesn't think it through properly,' said a senior Tory who is close to Mrs. Shephard.
'She warns them of the pitfalls, but they don't want to know. They go ahead and announce it, shove it on her desk, and tell her to get on with it.'

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is under-performing.

Mr. Blunkett: I am apparently under-performing because I am quoting the Secretary of State's friends, who believe that she has been dropped in the mire. She was quoted as saying:
She did not so much want to ring Mr. Blackwell."—
of the No. 10 policy unit—
She wanted to ring his neck.
One cannot blame her for that when a right-wing Tory could be so indecent and lacking in gentlemanliness as to say that Secretary of State was
so sopping wet … you could shoot snipe off her.
One must know Norfolk and the wetlands to know what a snipe is.
Snipers from the rear, snipers from the left of her, snipers from the right of her. They are all over the place. The right hon. Lady is being shot at by people who know nothing about education and who have, on the whole, educated their children privately. That is why she is so safe. Few of her Cabinet colleagues could dare to take her place. She is pushing forward with something that she does not believe in and knows will fail, but she has been forced to accept it.
Every scheme that the policy unit at No. 10 comes up with is another way of trying to create an ideological divide rather than caring about and investing in the needs of children. We and the British people are sick and tired of ideological experiments and laboratories.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The hon. Gentleman talks of splits and divides. Would he like to tell the House where he stands on
middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area"?
Does he have "no truck" with them or has that particular split been healed?

Mr. Blunkett: The difference between me and the Secretary of State is that I stand where I have always stood. I stand for parents, for information, for decent, high-quality provision. Decent, high-quality provision requires a qualified teacher to supervise and organise nursery education.
How can the Secretary of State suggest that she is providing nursery education and expanding the scheme, when she will not accept amendments that ensure that a qualified teacher is in charge of those nursery classes and


can supervise what takes place? I promise the Secretary of State that if the scheme goes ahead without qualified education and provides something that is less than the nursery education that the Prime Minister promised, we shall harry her now and throughout the general election.
We shall also challenge—if necessary, in the courts—the provision of a voucher for something that is not education and should therefore be taxed. In the words of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), the cost of the scheme is the "dead-weight cost" of providing a subsidy to those already buying private care, for whom the whole of the voucher scheme has been invented. It subsidises the better-off and denies those who need nursery education. It denies those who require special needs provision and provides a shoddy and unacceptable bureaucratic scheme instead of a clear commitment to expanding nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in England and Wales. It is time to put a stop to this nonsense and, instead, join together to co-operate and do what we have offered to ensure that every parent can have the security of a free nursery place for their child.

Mr. Don Foster: Choice, diversity and standards—that has now become the Government's mantra; but they should recognise that merely repeating the words does not mean that something will happen. The policies that the Government have promoted and their funding regime will not ensure choice, diversity and the raising of standards; the policies contained in the Bill certainly will not do that. Nothing has happened during the Bill's passage to reassure me on the numerous concerns that I expressed when the Secretary of State first introduced the proposals. There has been overwhelming opposition to the proposals contained in the Bill. The Government have refused to listen to any of the voices that have raised serious opposition to them.
The Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic—a view that is understandably shared by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). As we have seen, the Bill will fail to ensure the rapid provision of the extra infrastructure needed for the high-quality nursery education that we desperately need in this country. It will not provide significant increased provision; it will not boost provision and may even harm what exists for three-year-olds. It will fail to cover the cost of full-time provision, which will mean that the less well-off, who are unable to afford the necessary top-up fees, will receive nothing.
The Bill will fail to provide extra support for children with special educational needs. It will provide nothing for the training of the additional teachers and inspectors; it will fail to ensure that the full evaluation of the pilots takes place before the scheme starts. It will fail to encourage strategic planning and links between education and care provision. In short, the Bill will fail to provide what is desperately needed: high-quality early years education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. How bizarre of the Secretary of State to devote so much of her speech to grant-maintained schools; how bizarre to draw attention to the least successful of all the Government's education policies.
During the Second Reading debate, I argued that the Bill should be rejected because it contained too many blanks; none of those blanks has been filled in. The hon.

Member for Meriden feared that the Bill would be another Dangerous Dogs Bill. Just like Sherlock Holmes' famous dog in the night, let us hope that this one will not bark.

Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friends and I have long campaigned for publicly funded, high-quality nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. After years of Tory hostility towards nursery education—both here and in Tory local education authorities—the Prime Minister promised us nursery education for all four-year-olds. Every parent of a four-year-old should expect their child to obtain a nursery education which is from a qualified teacher and properly trained support staff, which will allow their individual learning needs to be met, which is in premises suitable to those needs and with sufficient teaching space, which has safe indoor and outdoor play areas and appropriate health and welfare facilities, and which has class sizes and staffing ratios that take into account both educational and child care needs.
However, what have we got? The measures outlined in the Bill, as it stands now, will not deliver high-quality nursery education. Such a system of voucher, pupil-led funding threatens existing high-quality and full-time nursery education, will not guarantee an increase in local provision, will punish those local education authorities that are already committed to expansion and may even reduce provision in some areas. The Bill wastes public money on a private company to administer and to police the system. It also raises expectations of increased choice, which will ultimately lead to parental disillusionment.
According to a parliamentary question that I asked recently, there are 145,000 four-year-olds in the voluntary and private sectors who will qualify for nursery vouchers in the private sector. This is a massive subsidy to the private sector. Many of the parents who are receiving the vouchers are too embarrassed to take the money. Huge sums of taxpayers' money are going into private, profit-making nursery establishments that may or may not give a quality provision.
There is nothing for local education authorities to expand their provision. It is common sense that at the present time a local education authority has only a certain number of places for children—and whether it be many or few, the nursery voucher scheme will not allow them to expand. There is no capital to build. It is impossible to provide places without the resources to do so. In some areas, where there are no or few nursery places in the local education authority sector, this will stay the same and parents can go only to the private sector—parents will not have a choice.
In areas such as Durham, which have good and reasonable provision, the position could be made even worse. Not only will they not be able to expand, but they may lose places. Why? Because money is to be clawed back from the local education authorities to pay for the scheme—clawed back not from those authorities that get under-fives allocations in their standard spending assessment but do not use it for the nursery provision, but from authorities that do use it to provide nursery places. That is illogical and unfair. Durham will lose £2.5 million in the deal. Authorities that provide nursery places will be penalised, and the authorities that do not provide them will be rewarded. Only this Government could be so daft or so sinister. The Bill should be defeated, and I hope that that happens this evening. We shall vote against it.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall plagiarise the marvellous adjective of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) for the final time: this spatchcocked piece of legislation deserves to go down for a number of reasons. In terms of inspections, it fails in relation to the premises, which seemed to exercise the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) so much, and it fails in relation to standards. It fails on the commitment—or lack of it—to qualified teachers in all institutions.
The Bill fails in terms of the provision of places, and not only in the 200 black holes identified by the Pre-School Learning Alliance. Conversely, it will damage good providers, whether in Solihull or the majority of Labour councils that make excellent provision. The Bill also fails in terms of children with special educational needs. Despite the arguments of hon. Members, and even the support of some Conservative Members, no concession was made by the Government. Crucially, the Bill fails because it does not properly consider the need for an evaluation of phase 1 before a commitment to phase 2.
The other half of the Bill fails in terms of the facility that is offered for borrowing to grant-maintained schools. It will do nothing to increase provision in the majority of those schools, as they showed by their lack of interest in the proposals. It does nothing to help the vast majority of our schools—the other 24,000. I shall use a fencing metaphor: the Government have approached this with a sabre while we have danced with foils. To put it in a boxing simile: the Government have used brute strength to push through unpopular proposals like a Mike Tyson, while the Muhammed Alis of the Labour party have given them a lesson in the science of dealing with it.
I note the absence, yet again, of members of the Standing Committee. No commitment was made in Committee by members of the Committee, and no commitment has been made tonight by members of the Government, to fair provision for all our children.
I urge the House to reject the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 238.

Division No. 84]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Booth, Hartley


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Amess, David
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Body, Sir Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cash, William





Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Churchill, Mr
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Fry, Sir Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth South)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gillan, Cheryl
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Heald, Oliver
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Fit Hon Sir Terence
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)






Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trend, Michael


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walden, George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Shersby, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Soames Nicholas
Watts, John



Wells, Bowen


Speed, Sir Keith



Spencer, Sir Derek
Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Sproat, Iain
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sweeney, Walter



Sykes, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chidgey, David


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Alton, David
Church, Judith


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Coffey, Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corston, Jean


Bell, Stuart
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Roseanna


Berry, Roger
Dafis, Cynog


Betts, Clive
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dewar, Donald


Byers, Stephen
Dixon, Don


Cabom, Richard
Dobson, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth





Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
MacShane, Denis


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Maddock, Diana


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fyfe, Maria
Martlew, Eric


Galbraith, Sam
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gerard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Milbum, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Mildred
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Graham, Thomas
Morgan, Rhodri


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
Olner, Bill


Heppell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Margaret
Pearson, Ian


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley North,
 Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Reid, Dr John


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ruddock, Joan


Jowell, Tessa
Sedgemore, Brian


Keen, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Khabra, Piara S
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litnerland, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spellar, John


Loyden, Eddie
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McFall, John
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McMaster, Gordon
Timms, Stephen






Tipping, Paddy
Wigley, Dafydd


Touhig, Don
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Tyler, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watson, Mike
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. John Cummings.


Welsh, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Special Grant Report (No. 18) (Grant to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District) (House of Commons Paper No. 239), which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(l)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

CREDIT UNIONS

That the draft Deregulation (Credit Unions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved. —[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Rural Crime

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I have the honour to present a petition from my constituent, Mrs. Olive May Smith, and others to the House, arising out of an horrific armed robbery on Milborne St. Andrew post office in Dorset in my constituency on 22 December 1995, as a result of which the Smith family suffered serious injuries.
The petitioners ask the House to urge the Home Secretary and the Government, together with the police authorities in Dorset and other rural areas, to target rural crime and to see that police manpower is increased so as to deal with the threats to our community life from violent law breaking of this kind.
The petition has my full support and I am grateful for the opportunity to present it on behalf of my constituents.

To lie upon the Table.

Home and Share Ownership

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. David Evans: The house-owning and share-owning democracy in which we live has come about through successive Conservative Governments. Before we look at the effect that it has had on our nation and people, we must look back to the chaos of the late 1970s, after five years of Labour Government.
The most embarrassing moment, which made a laughing stock of the whole British people, was when the then Labour Chancellor, Mr. Healey, on his way to Heathrow received a message that the International Monetary Fund was not going to trust him or the Labour Government with any more borrowed money; and that from that moment on the fund would be running the finances of our country. In other words, the country was bankrupt and the receivers had moved in. Britain was broke. The IMF asked the Chancellor to turn his car around since the ticket in his pocket was invalid, as neither he nor the Government could pay for it: "Please return to No. 11 and hand over the keys of the safe." The only thing the Chancellor ever turned around was a 747 going to New York. It certainly was not the economy.
That was just one of the reasons why we needed a Conservative Government—to enable our people to have a stake in their own lives through home and share ownership. I could give 60 other reasons, but I shall list just six.
First, in 1979 there were rats as big as cats running around Leicester square, because the Transport and General Workers Union said that the rubbish was not to be collected. Unfortunately, after five years of a Labour Government, the cats themselves were bedraggled, demotivated and dispirited—rather like the rest of us.
Secondly, we could not bury our loved ones, because the TGWU said that the gravediggers could not dig the graves. Thirdly, all the hospitals were shut to new patients, and urgently needed drugs could not be delivered to other patients because the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees—now parading under the name Unison—would not let anyone cross the picket lines manned by rent-a-mob.
I suppose that nobody will ever forget that lady dying of cancer on the pavement outside Kingston general hospital. This is not new or old Labour: it is Labour.
Fourthly, we had a top rate of income tax not of 40, 50, 60, 70, or 90 per cent. but of 98p in the pound. No wonder nobody bought shares—anyone receiving a dividend would have had to hand it over to the IMF. People say that it will not happen again. They are right—not while we have a Tory Government. But I would not be so sure if that lot over there were ever given power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?] Not here.
Fifthly, inflation in 1977 was running at 26.9 per cent., and over five years of Labour Government it averaged 15 per cent. No wonder the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is not prepared to say whether inflation is at the right level, or should be lower or higher. The fact is that, with inflation this low, he is totally bewildered and does not know what to say.
Sixthly, in the 1970s public utilities were losing money alongside the nationalised industries. After privatisation, British Steel leaped from making losses of £1.774 billion in 1979–80 to making profits of £733 million in 1989–90. I could go on and on, but I think that what I have said has set the scene for this debate.
I turn first to Government policies in respect of share ownership. The Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said on 1 November 1987:
Public utilities like Telecom and gas and essential industries such as British Airways and Rolls Royce were sold off by the Tories in the closest thing to legalised political corruption.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, the Conservative party do not consider selling off those industries the closest thing to legalised political corruption, because it enables employees to share the success of the company they work for.
It is worth noting, too, what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Labour Chief Whip, said about the privatisation of British Steel. He called it
a shoddy measure … totally irrelevant to the real interests of the industry, and it is based on dogma. The Labour party is unequivocally, implacably opposed to it".—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 238.]
The hon. Member also declared that, if British Airways were privatised,
it will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]
It must be the only pantomime horse in history that has proved worth backing. British Airways is now the most successful world leader, with more international scheduled services than any other airline.
Is it not remarkable that the RMT has purchased 7,500 shares in Eastern Electricity, 10,000 shares in Thames Water, and 15,000 shares in British Gas? The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in January this year, produced a report on the alleged failure of water privatisation. He declared that his report documented
the full extent of the failure, waste and greed of water privatisation.
Well, if it was such a failure, why did his union buy 10,000 shares in Thames Water?
The hypocrisy continues. The Labour-controlled local authority pension funds have invested more than £1,000 million in privatised companies. The Leader of the Opposition will be pleased to know that the value of privatised shares held by his local authority, Islington, is more than £24 million. However, that sum pales into insignificance compared with the investment level of South Yorkshire, whose shares are valued at more than £100 million.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Good God!

Mr. Evans: As with education reform, Labour party members throughout the country are benefiting from the policies of economic reform and privatisation, but they are resolutely sticking to the Leader of the Opposition's line, which is to say one thing and do another.
I am sure that we would all like to know that the RMT sponsors shadow Cabinet modernisers such as the right hon. and hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras, for

Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), for Garscadden, and for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Another union, the GMB, has bought shares in Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, British Steel and British Airways. The GMB sponsors shadow Cabinet high fliers such as the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for Eccles (Miss Lestor), for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
It is therefore not surprising that the Prime Minister has welcomed those moves—so do I—by stating:
I am delighted to welcome Islington, Lewisham and Southwark to the stockbroker belt, but it strikes me as odd that the Opposition opposed privatisation … and yet they buy shares in privatised companies and enjoy profits from them."—[Official Report, 1 February 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1121.]
It is not surprising, however, that Islington has joined the stockbroker belt, since one of its residents is hot-footing it to join the toffs at the Oratory.
As a measure of the success of privatisation, the following facts are of especial interest. One: since privatisation, British Telecom's prices have fallen in real terms by 35 per cent. on average. Two: there is now no waiting list for telephones to be installed. In 1984, there was a waiting list of 250,000. Three: domestic gas prices have fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms since privatisation in 1986. Gas prices in Great Britain are lower than those in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, and an additional 1.5 million customers have had their supply connected to the mains since 1986. Four: the average annual household gas bill, including VAT, is down by 20 per cent. since privatisation. Five: the average domestic electricity consumer will pay approximately £2 a week less in real terms in 1996 than in 1994.
The reality is there for all to see. When Labour was thrown out of office in 1979, the nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer £50 million a week in losses—£2,600 million a year. Today, in Conservative Britain, newly privatised industries pay approximately £60 million a week in taxes on the profit they earn in the private sector—£2,000 million a year. Privatised industries, particularly the utilities, gave the public what was for many their first opportunity to be shareholders. Now 12 million people are shareholders.
I am delighted that, in 1984, someone could buy shares in British Telecom for 130p each, and that, 11 years later, in November 1995, those shares could be sold for 414p. People began to believe again that they could have a stake in their country and their future. Had Labour had its way, none of those 12 million people would have had an opportunity to invest in the future. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield talks of a stakeholding nation. I say to him, "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next!"
As for home ownership, we have the lowest mortgage interest rate for 30 years. In February 1979, the minimum lending rate was 14 per cent.; in 1996, most lenders' standard rate is 7.25 per cent. Every 0.25 per cent. reduction in the interest rate, when passed on, means a saving of £6 a month on the average mortgage.
What has home ownership done for this country? Let us start with "An Englishman's home is his castle"—and that undoubtedly goes for the rest of the United Kingdom as well. That is why we do not want Labour to give Britain away to Brussels, as it would. The difference between us and that lot over there is that we stand four square behind the union jack, while they stand four square behind Jacques Santer under the skull and crossbones of Brussels.
Notwithstanding Labour's total opposition to the right to buy, 1.3 million people who were once downtrodden tenants of the feudal barons of local authorities now own their own homes, and many are still applying to buy them—800 a week, according to the 1994 figures, which are the latest available. That is despite the scare stories from Opposition Members.
We know that Labour fought tooth and nail—Labour-controlled councils, and Labour Members of Parliament—to stop people owning their own homes, although Labour council leaders and Members of Parliament owned their own homes, and, in some cases, had bought their council houses. That is another instance of their saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Nothing says that more clearly than the 1983 Labour party manifesto, on which the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Chancellor were elected to Parliament, which stated that they would
End enforced council house sales, empower public landlords to repurchase homes sold under the Tories".
Yet, for the umpteenth time, there are U-turns all over the place. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield said, on 5 March 1996:
I want to set out a picture of housing in which Labour supports the aspirations of the majority of the people to own their own homes.
Do we or the British people believe him? Of course we do not. Why should we? The effect of the Government's policies on home and share ownership has been that we, the people, are once again a proud nation. The Great is back in Britain. We have transformed people's aspirations. They can and do own the houses in which they live. They can and do have a real opportunity to invest in the infrastructure and future of our country. Long may it continue.
Today, people sit in the homes they own, and instead of watching a Labour party broadcast, they turn to the financial page on teletext to see how their shares are doing. They know that, under the Conservative Government, they will continue to prosper and be part of a great United Kingdom.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) for raising such important issues. Is it not noticeable that no Opposition Member cares or is sufficiently interested in this matter to attend this evening—apart from some of my hon. Friends who have decided that they want to sit on the Opposition Benches, just temporarily, for the debate?
My hon. Friend is correct that the reason why home and share ownership is so important, why we believe that these matters are fundamental for the democracy of this country, is that they are important to all our constituents. He was right to remind us of how it used to be. He gave us six reasons. There are many more. If he will bear with me, I shall give another six.
The first, of course, was inflation, which was running at such a rate that it wiped out my grandfather's pension, and no doubt those of many other people of whom hon. Members know. As a country, we were producing goods

that people did not want because the quality was not good enough, and at a price that was rising week by week. Taxation was high not only for individuals but for companies as well.
Direct-grant schools, such as the one that I went to, were abolished. Mine was abolished not because it was a bad school but because it was a school that the Labour party was philosophically against allowing in this country. If someone could afford a holiday, it was, perhaps, a week or 10 days in Spain, and only a few pounds could be taken because the currency was in such a bad state.
My hon. Friend is correct to remind us how it was. It is too easy to forget the reality of life under the Labour party. Indeed, he mentioned, in his opening remarks, British Steel, which, in some respects, is a company dear to my heart, because I was running a company whose customer was British Steel when it was a nationalised company. As a customer, it did not pay its bills. It was a poor customer. As a company, it was one of the biggest loss makers of all time in this country—when it was nationalised. As soon as it came into the private sector, we had a steel company of which we could be proud, which produced products that people wanted—an international competitor of world renown. My hon. Friend is right to remind us that that is what it is all about. That is what we stand for as a party. Those are policies that the country wants.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend quote some of the tremendous contradictions in what Labour Members say—indeed, what Labour Front Benchers say on behalf of the Labour party. He quoted the rubbish they speak on so many subjects. He quoted many of their predictions that have proven entirely and utterly wrong. My hon. Friend quoted another even more important feature of Labour Members, which is that they say one thing and do another on whatever subject, whether it be education, law and order or the subject he mentioned—pension funds.
It is correct to point out the tremendous advantages of the privatisation programme. It has enabled ordinary people not just to own shares but to take a personal interest in successful major industries. It has played a key role and has resulted in about 13 per cent. of the population owning shares in the privatised companies. Privatisation has meant that inefficient companies that were formerly propped up by the taxpayer are now contributing to the public purse. Companies that were formerly nationalised and poor have become world players. As my hon. Friend said, they are now serving better the home market and the people, whether they are gas, electricity or telephone customers.
Privatisation has resulted in companies becoming net substantial contributors to the public purse, rather than blotting paper that soaked up public money. It has resulted in a real share-owning democracy. British Telecom, British Gas and British Airways are but part of a long list of companies that not only provide a better service but from which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, people have made money for themselves and their families out of owning shares. Customers, companies and constituents all over Britain have prospered as a consequence.
There has been tremendous progress in wider share ownership over the past 17 years. The number of shareholders in the United Kingdom has risen dramatically. In 1979, there were about 3 million, but today there are more than 10 million. More than one in four adults own


shares. In 1993, the last year for which there is comprehensive data, almost half of all those shareholders held shares in two or more companies. These were not one-off shareholders, because they had seen the benefits of shareholding and bought shares in more and more companies. That is important, because it encourages savings, investment and enterprise. It helps people to help themselves.
We saw the need to encourage ownership and commitment in society, and there is true participation in a variety of ways. That is a long way from the so-called stakeholding that was explained by the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] Where is he? If shareholding and a property-owning democracy were important to Labour Members, at least one of them would be here, but there is no one on the Opposition Benches to listen to this important debate.
The Leader of the Opposition tripped around the country talking about stakeholding. We can be quite sure that the only stake in which he is interested is the big stake that his party wants in everybody's pocket. Those who want to know who will benefit from that stake in everybody's pocket should ask the unions and the single-issue pressure groups, the bizarre ones. But do not ask the great majority of the people, because they know that, while they will get nothing from so-called stakeholding, they will get everything from a shareholding and property-owning democracy under the policies that have been pursued by our party for so many years.
We have given people the freedom to invest in personal pensions and to take out occupational pensions and other pension plans. That enables them to provide for their independence and their future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield rightly spoke about that other most basic desire that is near to so many hearts—owning one's own home. If he will forgive me, I should like to quote a few statistics. In 1979, there were 11.5 million home owners. In 1985, there were 13.5 million. In 1996, there are more than 16 million—a 40 per cent. increase since 1979.
Every opinion poll on home ownership shows that the vast majority of people still want to own their own home, so we are helping home owners by cutting tax, leaving them with more money to spend as they choose, by reducing unemployment, and by keeping interest rates, and thus mortgage costs, as low as possible. One of the ways in which we are ensuring that more people can, if they wish, own their own home is by reducing unemployment month after month after month.
My hon. Friend is right to introduce the subject of Europe in that context. How true it is that the additional costs that so many Governments place on companies in Europe are resulting in unemployment rising, although it is falling in this country. It is no to minimum wages and to the social chapter, because it is yes to employment, to jobs, to low taxes, to interest rates as low as possible, to home ownership and to those policies that we stand for and that other parties in this country do not. Other countries in Europe have shown the way not to go.
Since the Budget, we have had three reductions in interest rates. Mortgage costs have fallen. The average outstanding mortgage costs about £160 a month. Repayments are at their lowest levels in relation to incomes for more than a decade. Interestingly, a 0.5 per cent. reduction in mortgage rates has a greater effect on the average mortgage than a 5 per cent. increase in mortgage interest relief at source. That is an interesting connection, because it shows just how important it is that we keep interest rates as low as possible.
National average house prices are starting to rise. They have risen for seven months in succession. The housing market is starting to turn around in all our constituencies. Mortgage rates are at their lowest levels since I was 15 years old, and inflation has not been so low since before I was born. I might not be a spring chicken, but I am not an old hen either. If I put those two figures in that context, it shows that we have an economy and we have achieved a position of which we can be proud.
A total of 1.6 million people have bought their own homes through the right-to-buy scheme. We believe in the right to buy. The Opposition parties want to own people's homes, not let people own their own homes. Those parties believe that, if they own a home, they own the soul. We believe that people should have independence.
In the past 17 years, we have taken significant steps to help to create a society based not on soundbites, but on sound policies of ownership, commitment and participation. Our policies on home and share ownership, savings, investment and enterprise have given millions of ordinary people what they wanted for themselves and their families in the United Kingdom in the 20th and 21st centuries. We will continue to do that for many years to come. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject on the Adjournment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.